news20091108jt

[TODAY'S TOP STORIES] from [The Japan Times]

[NATIONAL NEWS]
Sunday, Nov. 8, 2009
Japan deepens ties with Mekong
¥ 500 billion aid pledge, climate pact aimed at countering Chinese influence in Southeast Asia
Compiled from AP, Kyodo

Japan pledged ¥ 500 billion in fresh aid to the Mekong region after concluding a summit Saturday aimed at catching up with neighboring China in strengthening its partnership with the Southeast Asian region.

Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar joined host Japan at the two-day meeting, which underlined Tokyo's determination to go after its rich natural resources and cheap labor. China already has a major presence in the region.

Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama said the meeting was held partly to respond to "changing international situations," including China's growing influence there and the greater interest in the Mekong being expressed by the United States. It was the first meeting of its kind hosted by Japan.

The leaders wrapped up the meeting with a "Tokyo declaration" that commits Japan to helping out with 63 projects in the region, including port, airport and power line construction, private-sector investment and an exchange program that will bring 30,000 people, including youngsters, to Japan over the next three years.

The leaders of Japan and five Southeast Asia countries also agreed to step up cooperation on environmental protection and climate change over the next 10 years in an initiative to start "a Decade toward the Green Mekong."

The initiative, which will kick off next year, is part of the broader "Hatoyama Initiative," a proposal Hatoyama offered up in September to provide financial and technical assistance to developing countries that are working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Japan hosted the two-day event against the backdrop of stepped-up efforts to support countries along the Mekong River, a region where it seeks to bolster its influence and secure investment opportunities amid China's growing presence.

As a regional vision, Japan and the Mekong countries agreed the area should aim to contribute actively to the integration of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and to the building of an East Asian community in the long term, based on such principles as openness and transparency.

On military-ruled Myanmar, Japan and the Mekong countries, including Myanmar, declared that they expect the junta to take more positive steps toward democracy.


[NATIONAL NEWS]
Sunday, Nov. 8, 2009
U.S. open to environmental pact for bases
Visiting governors win backing for 'green' deal as SOFA review looms
By TAKEHIKO KAJITA
Kyodo News

WASHINGTON — The United States is ready to discuss the possibility of forming a special bilateral pact with Japan to address environmental damage at U.S. military bases in Japan, the governor of Kanagawa Prefecture said Friday.

The offer emerged when Kanagawa Gov. Shigefumi Matsuzawa and Okinawa Gov. Hirokazu Nakaima held separate talks with senior U.S. Defense and State Department officials, Matsuzawa said at a joint news conference with Nakaima in Washington.

Matsuzawa said the pact would be the first step in the new Democratic Party of Japan-led administration's goal of revising the bilateral Status of Forces Agreement, which governs U.S. military operations in Japan and legal arrangements for its personnel.

"We have won a full understanding that our proposed special environmental pact will contribute to strengthening the foundation of the Japan-U.S. alliance," he said.

The bilateral pact, more commonly known as SOFA, gives virtual extraterritorial rights to U.S. personnel, and there are growing calls to revise it to ensure suspects in criminal cases get handed over to Japanese police.

The United States has long been reluctant to revise the SOFA. Crimes committed by U.S. personnel can better be treated by making better use of the current agreement, it has said.

The proposed special environmental pact is aimed at allowing Japanese authorities to conduct effective on-site inspections at U.S. bases and to establish procedures for preventing and eliminating pollution. More information will be disclosed to ease the anxiety of local residents.

In a meeting with both governors, Wallace Gregson, assistant secretary of defense for Asia and the Pacific, was quoted as saying the United States wants to discuss environmental issues arising from its military presence.

Gregson also singled out the Japan-U.S. Joint Committee as a forum for taking up such matters because it specifically deals with SOFA-related issues.

In a separate meeting with the governors, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Joseph Donovan said the United States wants its military personnel in Japan to be good neighbors and is willing to look into the proposed pact to improve its response to environmental issues.

Matsuzawa said he and Nakaima understand that Japan and the United States will "promptly" launch formal talks on the pact, since both governments look favorably upon it.

The two governors are visiting the United States as chairman and vice chairman of a group of governors representing prefectures that host military facilities.

On the thorny issue of relocating U.S. Marine Corp Air Station Futenma in Okinawa, Nakaima repeated that he is willing to keep it in his prefecture as stated in the existing Japan-U.S. agreement.

"I think it best to move it out of the prefecture. But in light of the . . . history (of addressing the issue), it cannot be helped to accept its relocation within the prefecture," he said.

Complaining about the conflicting views expressed by Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and his Cabinet, Nakaima said he wants the central government to come up with a unified stance "as soon as possible."


[NATIONAL NEWS]
Sunday, Nov. 8, 2009
In reversal, Filipino family facing deportation allowed to stay
Kyodo News

The Justice Ministry has given a Filipino family targeted for deportation special permission to stay in Japan, the family's lawyer said Friday.

The family in Hiratsuka, Kanagawa Prefecture, was ordered to leave in October 2008 for overstaying their visas.

Justice Minister Keiko Chiba gave them permission to stay on Thursday, enabling the 44-year-old father, 41-year-old mother and three children born in Japan and aged between 6 and 11 to remain in the country.

The government rarely issues special residency permission to families with children of elementary school age or younger because it believes they can easily adjust to life in their mother country.

The family filed suit with the Tokyo District Court last December seeking to have the deportation order nullified.

It is believed the ministry's change of heart is linked to a review of the family's case following recent changes to Immigration Bureau guidelines.

The revisions, made in July, make it easier for a family with children in elementary or junior high school to get special permission to stay.

According to the family's lawyer, the father and mother entered Japan on entertainment visas in the 1990s.


[NATIONAL NEWS]
Sunday, Nov. 8, 2009
China sailors visit A-bomb museum

HIROSHIMA (Kyodo) In a rare mass visit, about 230 cadets and crew from a visiting Chinese naval training vessel visited Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum and the A-bomb Dome on Saturday.

The military visit to Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park, where the museum and dome are located, took place at the recommendation of the Maritime Self-Defense Force, the MSDF said.

The 5,470-ton Zhenghe and its crew of 360 arrived at Etajima port in Hiroshima Prefecture on Thursday for a visit aimed at promoting friendly relations between the two countries.

It is the second port call made by a Chinese naval vessel since November 2007.

news20091108lat1

[Today's Newspaper] from [Los Angeles Times]

[Greenspace]
Environmental news from California and beyond
Governor signs part of water package
November 6, 2009 | 3:52 pm

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today went to a scruffy field in the San Fernando Valley to sign two pieces of water legislation passed earlier this week.

The setting was the Tujunga well field of the San Fernando Valley aquifer, part of Los Angeles' water supply.

One of the bills establishes a statewide program to measure groundwater elevations. The other adds 25 state enforcement officers to track down illegal water diversions.

Unlike other Western states, California has not monitored or regulated groundwater pumping, which has caused major subsidence in some regions.

In its early forms, the enforcement bill was much stronger. It called for increased penalties for illegal water diversions and gave the state water board more clout to stop them. But those provisions proved politically explosive and were dropped.

Schwarzenegger is expected to sign the remaining parts of the water package in coming days, including a $11.1-billion bond that will go before voters a year from now.

Surrounded by state lawmakers and local officials, the governor informally launched the bond campaign. "We want to invest in the future of California, and this is the best investment we can make. It's very important to vote yes," he said.

-- Bettina Boxall


[Greenspace]
Environmental news from California and beyond
Shell Oil paying millions for tank violations
November 6, 2009 | 2:23 pm

Shell Oil Co. will pay $19.5 million in civil penalties and fees to settle a state complaint involving hundreds of environmental violations at its California gas stations.

A state investigation found problems with leak detection and monitoring of underground storage tanks, as well as hazardous waste handling at Shell gas stations across the state, according to the attorney general's office. One of the gas stations was next door to the office of the Contra Costa County hazardous materials program.

An Alameda County Superior Court order released today also requires the company to improve its spill and alarm monitoring.

Leaking underground tanks can be a significant source of pollution, contaminating groundwater supplies.

--Bettina Boxall


[Greenspace]
Environmental news from California and beyond
Flat-tailed horned lizard gets boost from Arizona judge [Updated]
November 4, 2009 | 5:55 pm

In the latest chapter in a 16-year legal battle to keep the flat-tailed horned lizard safe from urban encroachment, a federal court judge in Arizona has reinstated a 1993 proposal to list the creature as a threatened species.

U.S. District Judge Neil V. Wake’s ruling follows a recent U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals order that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reconsider its earlier decision to deny the lizard protection under the Endangered Species Act. That decision rejected a Bush administration policy that environmentalists complained favored development at the expense of the lizard and many plants and animals across the nation.

Since 1993, the agency has withdrawn three proposals to list the lizard on the grounds it was hard to find and, therefore, difficult to classify as threatened. Each withdrawal was successfully challenged in court by conservation groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club and the Horned Lizard Conservation Society.


In the meantime, the lizard’s population has continued to decline in Arizona, California and Baja California largely because its habitats of gravel pans and dunes have been taken over by farming, housing, off-road vehicles, geothermal leases, gravel pits, golf courses, military exercises and border fences between the United States and Mexico.

The Department of the Interior is expected to make a final decision about the status of the flat-tailed horned lizard by November 2010.

“The lizard is certainly as deserving of federal protection today as it was 16 years ago,” said attorney Bill Snape, who represented the Center for Biological Diversity in the matter. “Hopefully this is the final chapter in the lizard’s long and tortured legal history.”

The lizard — 3 1/2 inches long and a voracious consumer of harvester ants — once inhabited wide swaths of the Colorado and Sonoran deserts.

Listing the lizard as threatened could potentially affect the ongoing rush to build huge solar energy facilities across the desert flatlands of Southern California, said Allan Muth, a plaintiff in the lawsuit and director of the Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center, south of Palm Desert.

“Amid all the applications being submitted to develop solar energy plants, it doesn’t look like things will get any better for the flat-tailed horned lizard,” Muth said. “If listing the lizard as a threatened species means people will take a little more time to think these things through, that’s a good thing.”

Anticipating a protection declaration, Stirling Energy Systems plans to mitigate the environmental impacts of its proposed Solar II facility on 6,500 acres of flat-tailed horned lizard habitat near the Imperial County city of El Centro by purchasing prime lizard habitat elsewhere and then donating it for conservation. [Updated at 7:51 p.m.: The name of that proposed facility was recently renamed Tessera Solar's Imperial Valley Solar Two by Stirling to reflect the name of its sister company.]

-- Louis Sahagun


[OPINION]
Editorial
Climate change bill is in trouble
Political tactics tie up the Senate version, and efforts to salvage it may be too little too late.
November 8, 2009

If you think the partisan divide over healthcare reform is ugly, take a look at the animus in the Senate as debate continues on a key climate change bill. So wide is the gulf that long-held Senate traditions on decorum are breaking down. And as Washington fiddles, the Earth burns.

The Senate version of a House bill aimed at capping greenhouse gas emissions was stalled last week by Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee, who boycotted the discussion, demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency agree to do a more thorough study of the bill's economic impact. It was an ugly and highly unusual tactic aimed at delaying a bill that has already been thoroughly vetted by the EPA, leaving Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the committee chair, little choice but to resort to extremes herself. She put the bill, S. 1733, up for a vote Thursday without a single Republican present. That angered Republicans but was even more frustrating for Democrats -- several wanted to amend the bill, but with no one from the minority party present, no amendments were allowed. The bill passed, 11-1.

This doesn't bode well. Wiser heads are working to salvage the legislation, with John Kerry (D-Massachusetts), Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut) announcing plans to craft a bill that can attract the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster. But Democrats from Southern and coal-producing states are reluctant to sign on, and attracting any GOP votes will be a challenge; many believe the chances are slim that the bill, which sets a cap on emissions while allowing polluters to trade carbon credits, will be approved this year.

Such a failure would be disastrous in more ways than one. With no commitment to cut greenhouse gases in the U.S., it would be next to impossible to get other big polluter nations on board in Copenhagen in December for a global agreement on fighting climate change. Another year's delay will make future efforts more expensive and less effective. With a third of all Senate seats up for election in 2010, it will become even harder to pass controversial legislation.

Climate skeptics would celebrate all this as a victory. They are not swayed by the dire forecasts of the International Panel on Climate Change, nor the endorsements of those findings by the national academies of science of the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and Brazil. Confronted by a crisis whose most terrible repercussions will come after they're dead, they'd rather stick their children with the bill.

news20091108lat2

[Today's Newspaper] from [Los Angeles Times]

[OPINION]
Editorial
Climate change bill is in trouble
Political tactics tie up the Senate version, and efforts to salvage it may be too little too late.
November 8, 2009

If you think the partisan divide over healthcare reform is ugly, take a look at the animus in the Senate as debate continues on a key climate change bill. So wide is the gulf that long-held Senate traditions on decorum are breaking down. And as Washington fiddles, the Earth burns.

The Senate version of a House bill aimed at capping greenhouse gas emissions was stalled last week by Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee, who boycotted the discussion, demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency agree to do a more thorough study of the bill's economic impact. It was an ugly and highly unusual tactic aimed at delaying a bill that has already been thoroughly vetted by the EPA, leaving Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the committee chair, little choice but to resort to extremes herself. She put the bill, S. 1733, up for a vote Thursday without a single Republican present. That angered Republicans but was even more frustrating for Democrats -- several wanted to amend the bill, but with no one from the minority party present, no amendments were allowed. The bill passed, 11-1.

This doesn't bode well. Wiser heads are working to salvage the legislation, with John Kerry (D-Massachusetts), Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut) announcing plans to craft a bill that can attract the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster. But Democrats from Southern and coal-producing states are reluctant to sign on, and attracting any GOP votes will be a challenge; many believe the chances are slim that the bill, which sets a cap on emissions while allowing polluters to trade carbon credits, will be approved this year.

Such a failure would be disastrous in more ways than one. With no commitment to cut greenhouse gases in the U.S., it would be next to impossible to get other big polluter nations on board in Copenhagen in December for a global agreement on fighting climate change. Another year's delay will make future efforts more expensive and less effective. With a third of all Senate seats up for election in 2010, it will become even harder to pass controversial legislation.

Climate skeptics would celebrate all this as a victory. They are not swayed by the dire forecasts of the International Panel on Climate Change, nor the endorsements of those findings by the national academies of science of the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and Brazil. Confronted by a crisis whose most terrible repercussions will come after they're dead, they'd rather stick their children with the bill.


[NATION]
Wildlife filmmakers focusing on endangered cats
Dereck and Beverly Joubert, who have spent 25 years documenting Africa's most iconic animals, have teamed with National Geographic on the Big Cats Initiative in an attempt to stop their extinction.
{{Award-winning documentarians Dereck and Beverly Joubert have spent more than 25 years photographing some of Africa's most iconic animals.}
(Beverly Joubert / November 6, 2009)}
By Thomas H. Maugh II
November 7, 2009

South African wildlife photographers and authors Dereck and Beverly Joubert have worked in some of Africa's most remote areas for more than 25 years, recording the life cycles and decline of some of the continent's most iconic animals, in the process winning five Emmys, a Peabody and a Wildscreen Panda Award.

Their most recent film and book, both titled "Eye of the Leopard," record their four years living close to a wild mother leopard and her cub on a small island in Botswana's Okavango Delta.

Now they are working with the National Geographic Society and other international groups on the Big Cats Initiative, an effort to halt the extinction of these remarkable animals. The husband and wife visited Los Angeles recently and sat down for a talk.

Why big cats?

Dereck Joubert: Big cats are disappearing at a tremendous rate. We've seen these numbers just tumble, from 450,000 lions 50 years ago to 20,000 today. Leopards, 700,000 to 50,000. Tigers, there are fewer than 1,000 left in India.

We should all care about big cats because, as we are now finding out, whole ecosystems disappear when we lose them. Whether it's wolves in North America, sharks in the sea, tigers in India and Asia, or lions in Africa, these ecosystems rely on these big cats and big predators to keep them around. As the predators at the top disappear, the large prey grow in number. They start forcing out the smaller prey, smaller predators start feeding on still smaller prey, and it becomes a monoculture [with only one species], and that monoculture collapses and you end up with no ecosystem.

Everything is linked to everything else. It's ironic, but you take out the lions that are often in conflict with the communities, and suddenly the communities have a worse life.

What's causing the loss of the cats?

Beverly Joubert: There are many reasons, but it's mainly the conflict with man. As we have man getting closer to the wilderness areas, obviously there is going to be conflict. A lot of Africans are cattle herders, and lions find the cattle an easy prey. They will take a cow . . . and then the communities will retaliate. The Masai retaliate by spearing them. In some areas, they retaliate by poisoning the carcass. And then of course it doesn't kill only the one lion that has killed their cow, but a variety of other species as well, like jackals and hyenas and vultures, and of course the whole lion tribe.

And then of course we do have the Western culture of trophy hunting. When animals are on the decline, hunting, especially trophy hunting, is not a true conservation mechanism. We have to stop all killing.

Another component is the Asian trade in lion bones [for medicinal purposes]. They would like to use tiger bones, but now in India there are less than 1,000 tigers, so it's just not that easy for them to get tiger bones. And lion bones look very similar. . . .

What are you doing?

BJ: The main thing is . . . that, by 2015, we should stop the decline, and then by 2020 we should increase the population in areas where they have gone extinct.

DJ: We predict an extinction of lions by 2020 if nothing is done, and that would be completely demoralizing and hopeless if it happened. There is a window of opportunity for us to get in and fix this now, and there are ways to fix it.

For example, we are supporting predator compensation, so when cattle are killed [the herders are paid]. The idea is to make sure they are not in deficit, so that when they come to the table and we start a dialogue about the real importance of lions to ecosystems, they don't have the crutch of saying, "Yeah, that's easy for you to say, but we lost a cow last night."

BJ: It's a way of drawing the local communities into protecting the areas and making them realize that [the lion] is something precious, a huge predator that brings in revenue from tourists that benefits everyone.

What else?

DJ: The big issue here is that about 80% of the range of the lions has been lost, so while our first strategy is to stop the brutal killing, the next phase is to reverse that and push back. We are working with a number of organizations to buy back these corridors [between islands of lion populations] and create links.

The big problem with lions now is that they have been ring-fenced and isolated into these small islands, sometimes as small as one lioness. . . . We know from island biogeography that the smaller the island, the greater the chance of extinction. That's why the 2020 extinction figure is almost our best-case scenario unless we do something. If there are two populations that are dwindling, we want to buy that land in the middle and create a link.

And then our last strategy, which we have started already, is to start collecting DNA samples from the broadest range of lion populations we have today. We have to assume there are more lions today than there will be in five years, so we better get out there right now and start collecting these DNA samples.

If we have DNA and sperm samples, we can help captive breeding and not be dipping into the wild animals. If the numbers in the game reserves on these islands start dwindling, we can dip into the gene bank to supplement it.

Our focus is lions and the other big cats, but by rehabilitating their home range, we can create economic benefits as well for communities.

Presently, there is a flow of communities out of the core of Africa and into the towns because there is no money out in the wild, there is no food, there is no economic benefit at all. If we can reverse that flow, we can create a better lifestyle for everybody. So this is not just a lion or big cat solution, it is a people solution.

How can people help?

news20091108lat3

[Today's Newspaper] from [Los Angeles Times]

[NATION]
Senate panel OKs sweeping climate bill
Democrats bypass a Republican boycott and approve a plan to limit greenhouse gases. The GOP wanted more cost analysis. Backers say the move gives the U.S. credibility ahead of talks in Copenhagen.
{{In Washington, Republican seats are empty at a meeting of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
(Harry Hamburg / Associated Press / November 5, 2009)}
By Jim Tankersley
November 6, 2009

Reporting from Washington - In a move that stoked optimism for global climate negotiations but raised tempers on Capitol Hill, Democrats on a key Senate committee swept aside a Republican boycott Thursday to pass a far-reaching plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

The 11-1 vote came after the Democrats, led by Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), invoked a procedural rule to take a vote even though no Republicans were at the meeting. Republican senators have stayed away from the panel's hearings on the bill all week, saying a more detailed government analysis of the measure's costs was needed before any vote took place.

The decision by Democrats to proceed with the vote anyway rippled through Washington and the international community, which is gearing up for climate treaty negotiations in Copenhagen next month.

Environmental groups praised the move, saying it gave the United States a much-needed dose of credibility going into the talks.

Oxfam America, an international development and relief organization, said the vote "keeps the United States in the game for Copenhagen."

The Union of Concerned Scientists said, "This is yet more evidence that the United States has the political will to reduce emissions and work with the rest of the world."

In a statement, Boxer called the vote "in full accordance" with Senate rules. She decried the GOP tactics and stressed the urgency of fighting global warming. "We are pleased that, despite the Republican boycott, we have been able to move the bill," she said.

But Republicans and some industry groups condemned the move.

American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard said the bill the committee approved "could destroy millions of American jobs and drive up fuel prices, punishing everyone who drives, flies or takes a bus or train. The only bipartisanship evident today was opposition to this approach."

Still, it was unclear how the vote will affect the final climate bill, which would set a declining limit on heat-trapping gas emissions from major sources such as factories and power plants.

Proponents say the bill would spur "clean energy" job growth in sectors such as wind and solar power; critics say it would impose huge new costs on consumers. A version of the bill narrowly passed the House over the summer.

Several Senate Democrats have expressed reservations about the legislation, particularly its potential to raise costs for farmers and coal consumers. A handful of moderate Republicans, though, have suggested they could back the measure if it was properly crafted -- for example, if it included new incentives for offshore drilling and nuclear power.

Boxer's decision to approve the bill without Republicans present could also upset moderates from both parties.

Three senators -- Democrat John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut -- are drafting a version of the bill in consultation with the White House and Senate leaders, in hopes of attracting wide bipartisan support.

Boxer has long promised to pass a climate bill from her committee as a show of good faith for foreign governments concerned that the United States has not adopted wide-ranging emissions limits.

Still, it doesn't appear the move will be enough to spark a binding treaty in Copenhagen.

Increasingly in recent days, leaders from around the world have admitted what analysts and some negotiators have whispered for months: that the best-case scenario for Copenhagen is a political agreement to reduce emissions -- with details to be worked out in future negotiations -- and not mandatory reduction targets.

"It's quite apparent that the very high target we're looking for, the legally binding targets we're looking for in Copenhagen, will elude us," Rear Adm. Neil Morisetti, Britain's climate security envoy, said. "There's still an opportunity for us to get political targets."

news20091108wp

[Today's Newspaper] fom [The Washington Post]

[Sports Columns & Blogs]
Returning to their rightful place
By Thomas Boswell
Thursday, November 5, 2009

NEW YORK

About eight New York Yankees, leaping over their dugout railing and pouring onto the field, almost beat the last throw of the World Series to first base. Score the final Phillies out 4-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3 with nine Yankees playing first base.

So overjoyed were they, their heads spinning, their mouths open with screams of delight -- where do I run, who do I hug -- that the Yankees, for once, looked just like a normal, silly, overjoyed team. That's how nine years without something you covet, something you live and work for, will make you act.

The crowd of 50,315 sang "New York, New York," like they'd never heard it before and couldn't believe that kid Frank Sinatra had such a good voice. "We are the champions," sure they bellowed that, too, like it's not the 27th blasé time but as good as the first in 1923.

Joba Chamberlain, twirling a 10-foot pennant over his head, ran alone behind home plate so he could wave the lance of victory directly up at the owner's box. George Steinbrenner III, 79, his health always described as "failing," wasn't here. But, somewhere, the Boss was feeling good enough to fire somebody.

"To be able to deliver this to the Boss is very gratifying," said Yankees Manager Joe Girardi, who can now rest -- for three days.

They put a podium behind second base so every Yankee could make a speech and nobody had to leave, because where could be better than the Big Ballpark in the exact moment it was created for? Finally, they announced the Series MVP and the big roar began before the name was said because, when the Yankees win Game 6, 7-3, and you drive in six runs, the ballot ain't secret.

But the star, who hit .615 in this Series with three homers, took his bow. No question, now we know the definitive answer to "Who's Your Daddy?" It's Hideki Matsui, now and forever.

Once, Matsui was the three-time MVP of Japanese baseball, nicknamed Godzilla. Now, he's the Series hero who, at the expense of Pedro Martínez and Philadelphia, has become the chief ghostbuster of the new Yankee Stadium.

Thanks to Matsui's record-tying six RBI, four of them off Martinez, the Yankees can forget all the haunts and hexes that made their musty home across 161st Street akin to a spooky old attic, full of bad memories collected over the past eight lousy, costly years.

Now, with a victory here on Wednesday night, the Yanks can resume their glorious history as the most famous, formidable team in U.S. sports history. As for those scary Yankee years from 2001 to 2008, the verdict is now in. That was a bitter interlude, a long embarrassment, but not a sea change in the franchise fortunes.

"When I came here, it was to win a championship with the New York Yankees," said Matsui, 35, through an interpreter. "It's been a long road and a difficult journey. But I'm just happy that, after all these years, we can reach our goal. It's the best moment of my life."

This night, with its Matsui-vs.-Martínez meetings, was doubly delicious because it brought the Yankees back full circle to their last moment of pure baseball ecstasy -- Game 7 of the '03 American League Championship Series.

That was the Grady Little Game -- the perfect Yankee humiliation of the Red Sox before, suddenly, things started going weird in the Bronx. That night (baseball just adores irony and symmetry), when Boston Manager Little visited the mound to decide whether to pull Martínez with a 5-3 lead, the man coming to the plate was Matsui. Little left him in. Matsui doubled, and Jorge Posada drove in two runs to tie the game. The Yankees won the pennant in the 11th inning.

This Series delivered more major Matsui-Martínez matchups. In Game 2, tied 1-1 in the sixth, Matsui golfed a low change-up over the fence for the eventual winning run. Then, in Game 6, Matsui sent Martínez into a kind of pitching paralysis. Cobra to mongoose: I give up. In the second inning with a man on base, Matsui hit balls that looked like two home runs and a double as they left the bat, yet all hooked foul. Finally, on the eighth pitch, he ended the active big league career of an 89 mph no-so-fastball by turning it into a second-deck souvenir.

In the third, Matsui lashed an 0-2 Martínez fastball for a two-run single to center, then in the fifth inning basically iced the game with a two-run double off lefty reliever J.A. Happ. In the end, to give Girardi his due -- or at least his 11th-hour pardon from the warden -- Martínez was less effective on full rest than the Yanks' Andy Pettitte was on three days' rest. Pettitte, gritty and good enough, gave up three runs in 5 2/3 innings for his third series-clinching win in this postseason. He's now 18-9 in postseasons and, if he'll pitch about three more decent seasons he may get to Cooperstown.

Seldom has one man played a role as central as Matsui did this night in mending the fraying fabric of a great franchise's reputation. If he hit three rally-killing grounders to second base, instead of blasting the ball all over the yard, maybe there's a Game 7 and a lot of hearts are in a lot of mouths.

Yankee Stadium was baseball's most gorgeous haunted house when this game began. By the end of the night, the Yanks' new palace, more stunning than its predecessors, had been fumigated, jinx-fixed and made perfectly safe for the legion of pride-filled pinstripe fans who'll pack it for years to come without any spooky fears.

Fears of what? Why fear of the sorts of Yankee-tormenting foolishness that has turned the 2001-08 era into a chamber of Bronx horrors. For generations, the Yanks bragged about their ghosts, invoked them, played film clips, as though baseball were a seance that Ruth, DiMaggio and Mantle could attend. Derek Jeter said he could feel their presence. But in the last eight years that's changed.

Season after season, the Yanks' collected disappointments and historic collapses ('04), huge payrolls and frustrating early exits from the playoffs. They've been upset in the World Series by both the upstart D'backs and Marlins, blown a three-game lead to the hated Red Sox and been knocked out in the first round of the playoffs four times. And last year, the highest-paid team in the history of baseball didn't even make the playoffs.

Yet, with their three crisp postseason series wins -- a combined 11-4 record in dismissing the Twins, Angels and Phillies -- the Yankees have reversed that bitter period in their history. Brrrrr, never mention any of it again. Now, 2001-08 is just an inconvenient interregnum, not cause for concern that this entire business of Being the Yankees was going mysteriously wrong.

From the moment last winter that the Yankees began signing $423 million of free agents, this season was about one thing: Make The Pain Stop. Now, it's over. The team that wanted to win one more time, at the least, for Steinbrenner , got the job done.

And they did it just the way he always preferred -- with dominance, a margin for error and no question, after a 103-win season, that says these Bombers are baseball's best.

Some will say, "Well, they should be." From 2001 through 2009, the Yanks paid $1.577 billion in salaries -- the highest in the sport in every season and 45 percent more than the next highest in that period (Boston). The Yanks outspent the third-highest Mets by 57 percent, the Dodgers by 71 percent and the Cubs and Braves by 87 percent. Only six teams spent half as much as the Yanks.

What should such a huge advantage produce? Who knows? But it has netted another title, and the big-money players were essential. CC Sabathia went 3-1 with a 1.98 ERA in the postseason. Alex Rodriguez, the highest-paid player in the game, but an anchor in previous playoffs, set a Yankees postseason record with 18 RBI.

When you are a child, you think as a child and imagine that, someday, the Yankees will never win another Series. When you are an adult, you think as an adult and put away childish things. You know the Yankees will always win the World Series. But, if you're lucky, only seven times in the last 46 years.

They're back. They're on top. And the '09 version is a particularly fine specimen of the breed. They have players you deeply admire, such as Jeter, Pettitte, Mariano Rivera, who finished this game, Posada, Johnny Damon and the elegant Matsui. For them, this was a return to their natural place in the order of baseball things.

They also have that other classic Bronx type, players who've dreamed of wearing pinstripes ever since they were boys, their heads filled with romance, fantasizing about Babe Ruth, Joe D and enough money to embarrass Goldman Sachs.

What no one who loves baseball really wants is a wobbled Yankee franchise that has lost its confidence or, as has seemed possible recently, even become comic.

The sport's stage is simply incomplete without the Yankees standing prominently upon it. Now they are back in the very center of that theater, pinstripe muscles flexed. Share their relief, their pride, as they erupt onto the field, their present once more a continuation, painfully interrupted, of their past.

Relish it if you can. Or deal with it. Because they're all the way back: top of the heap, A-No. 1, making a brand new start of it in old New York.

news20091108nn

[naturenews] from [nature.com]
[naturenews]
Published online 7 November 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.1057
News
Planting trees can shift water flow
Creating forests where none existed may affect long-term hydrology.
By Ana Belluscio

The slash pine plantations on the left and the natural grassland on the right belong to different watersheds. When compared, the plantation yields about one half of the water per unit area than its grassland counterpart.Domingo AlcarazPlanting trees, which can significantly help to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, nevertheless comes with potentially damaging side effects. According to two new studies, planting forests in areas that currently don't have trees — a process called afforestation — can reduce the local availability of water.

One key measure of water flow is 'base flow', the proportion of a stream or river not attributable to direct run-off from precipitation or melting snow. Base flow is often seen as the minimum supply of water on which people can safely rely. But in basins that contain small rivers, afforestation can reduce base flow by up to 50%, says Esteban Jobbágy, an ecologist at Argentina's national scientific council (CONICET) and the National University of San Luis.

Less base flow means less water for local populations. "It's a concern especially in drier regions, where the differences in base flow may be more noticeable," says Dan Binkley, a forest ecologist at Colorado State University in Fort Collins who was not involved in the research.

Jobbágy's team conducted a two-year study on seven paired basins — seven with native grasslands and seven that had been planted with forests — in the province of Córdoba, Argentina. With their deep roots and tall canopies, trees absorb and transpire more water than do grasses, resulting in drier streams. According to Jobbágy, reductions in base flow are less pronounced in sloping or rocky basins, as water can escape from the tree roots and travel through the rocks.

Jobbágy presented his team's results last month at the World Forestry Congress in Buenos Aires.

A second study presented at the conference, and conducted in Uruguay, came to similar conclusions. A team led by Wayne Skaggs of North Carolina State University in Chapel Hill, in collaboration with the US Forest Service, afforested one of a pair of watersheds. The researchers observed an 18–22% drop in base flow in the afforested watershed compared with the watershed that had been left as grassland. "As the trees get larger, the effect will be somewhat greater," says Skaggs.

The differences between Jobbágy's and Skaggs's figures are mainly due to differences in the number of trees per hectare in the two studies — greater in Jobbágy's basins — and the trees' age. In Córdoba, the studied areas were afforested in the 1970s, whereas Skaggs and his team planted their trees in 2003.

Besides reducing base flow, afforestation can affect how water filters through the ecosystem. "Afforested sites are not as 'splashy' as pastured sites," says Skaggs. Tree roots help to filter water into the soil, thus slowing the rate at which water levels rise after rain. "This is actually a good thing," he says. "It could reduce flood flows, particularly from small watershed areas." According to his team's observations, the afforested parts of watersheds also prevent the erosion and sediment-leaching that were seen in their grassland counterparts.

Jobbágy says that, at least for his study areas, the ideal balance between afforestation and water needs is for one-quarter of the river basin to be planted with between 400 and 500 trees per hectare. "It is possible to prevent drastic effects" on water availability, he says.

Choosing tree species wisely might help, Binkley and Jobbágy suggest, as different species use water at different rates. Whereas fast-growing evergreen pines consume large amounts of water, deciduous trees such as poplar and walnut use less, especially in winter. Also, planting only some portions of the watershed "might achieve the balance of providing wood products for the people without the impact on the basin's water balance", says Binkley.

news20091108bbc1

[One-Minute World News] from [BBC NEWS]

[Science & Environment]
Page last updated at 00:52 GMT, Sunday, 8 November 2009
Scheme 'can cut extra emissions'
{The scheme will penalise bodies performing badly on CO2 emissions}
A new business scheme could slash energy bills and cut carbon emissions by 50% more than anticipated, a study by the Environment Agency will claim.

The report is expected to say that the Carbon Reduction Commitment, a government efficiency scheme, could reduce CO2 emissions by 11.6m tonnes.

This would be the equivalent of taking four million cars off the road.

The study says the government and businesses have more potential to cut energy use than originally estimated.

Main tools

There has been long-standing scheme to force heavy industries to reduce emissions, but the little-known CRC is the government's new attempt to spread the effort more broadly across business and services.

It will cover around 5,000 large organisations including construction, food, manufacturing and local authorities.

The Environment Agency report says hotels, restaurants, shops and government departments have huge potential to cut energy use - even more potential than originally estimated.

The main tools are better management of heating, air conditioning and lighting.

The study quotes the example of Kings College London, which carried out a refurbishment which allowed its buildings to use natural ventilation rather than air conditioning. Window shutters - another important insulation measure - were also added as part of the project.

As a result, the report says, the college is saving around £96,000 per year on its energy bills.

The study also points out that by simply turning lights off in areas that are not being used, businesses could shave 15% off their energy bills.

Under the CRC, organisations will be required to buy CO2 "allowances" for each tonne of CO2 they emit.

The revenue raised from selling allowances will be "recycled" back to participants according to the progress they make in reducing emissions.

Those doing best will get more money back than they put in - and those doing worse will lose out.


[Science & Environment > UK]
Page last updated at 23:33 GMT, Saturday, 7 November 2009
Law change call for space flight
{Virgin Galactic expects to start taking passengers in the next few years}
A change in the law is needed before Scotland can be considered as a launch site for commercial space flights, the head of Virgin Galactic has said.

The firm's president Will Whitehorn said locations in Scotland and Sweden were being considered as bases for Virgin's European operations.

But he said UK laws would have to be amended to allow flights to take place.

Mr Whitehorn said UK ministers and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) was currently looking at the issue.

Virgin Galactic expects to start taking fare-paying passengers on short space hops in the next few years, but claims current rules would prevent launches from the UK.

'No reliability'

Lossiemouth in Moray has put itself forward as a possible spaceport, and the Virgin boss said it had great potential.

But he said: "Britain has no legislation to allow us to fly here - there is no regulatory authority.

"The Outer Space Act, which Britain created in 1986, didn't really envisage a system like this.

"It didn't envisage there would ever be space launches in the UK so there's no regulator, no insurance, no reliability or structure.

"But the British National Space Centre, which is a government quango, and Lord Drayson, the minister responsible for space, and the CAA are all looking closely at this issue."


[Science & Environment]
Page last updated at 16:25 GMT, Friday, 6 November 2009
Studies 'overstate species risks'
{Different models predicted differing outlooks for Alpine species}
Some large-scale computer simulations may be overestimating the impact of climate change on biodiversity in some regions, researchers have suggested.
By Mark Kinver
Science and environment reporter, BBC News


They said models that analyse vast areas often failed to take into account local variations, such as topography and microclimates.

Local-scale simulations, which did include these factors, often delivered a more optimistic outlook, they added.

The findings have been published in the journal, Science.

One of the studies cited in the paper looked at the fate of plant species in the Swiss Alps.

"A coarse European-scale model (with 16km by 16km grid cells) predicted a loss of all suitable habitats during the 21st Century," the researchers wrote.

"Whereas a model run using local-scale data (25m by 25m grid cells) predicted (the) persistence of suitable habitats for up to 100% of plant species."

Micro v macro

Co-author Shonil Bhagwat, a senior research fellow at the University of Oxford, UK, said when vegetation was looked at on a smaller scale, scientists saw a different picture.

"For example, smaller plots give data on microclimatic variations, whereas large-scale models predict (uniform) changes throughout the landscape."

Advances in computing power meant that more large-scale datasets were being made available to scientists, Dr Bhagwat explained.

"There is more interest in predicting widespread, large-scale effects," she told BBC News, "that is why coarser-scale models are normally used.

"However, the changes in communities of vegetation occur at a much smaller scale."

In the paper, Dr Bhagwat and co-author Professor Kathy Willis, wrote: "These studies highlight the complexities that we are faced with trying to model and predict the possible consequences of future climate change on biodiversity."

The researchers called for more micro-scale studies to be carried out that complement the overall picture presented by larger models.

However, they added that the overall picture for biodiversity loss was still bleak, especially once the rate of habitat loss and fragmentation was taken into account.

"Predicting the fate of biodiversity in response to climate change combined with habitat fragmentation is a serious undertaking fraught with caveats and complexities," they observed.

For example, Dr Bhagwat explained, the current system of having fixed nature reserves may need to be reconsidered.

"We have 12% of the Earth's land surface covered in protected areas, but climate change is likely to push species out of their home ranges and out of reserves," she added.

"So we need to look beyond reserves and create the conditions that allow the migration of species."


[Science & Environment]
Page last updated at 22:41 GMT, Thursday, 5 November 2009
Horse genome unlocked by science
{The horse genome could yield clues to human disease }
The genome of a domestic horse has been successfully sequenced by an international team of researchers.

The work, published in the journal Science, may shed light on how horses were domesticated.

It also reveals similarities between the horse and other placental mammals, such as bovids - the hoofed group including goats, bison and cattle.

The authors also found horses share much of their DNA with humans, which could have implications for medicine.

Horses suffer from more than 90 hereditary diseases that show similarities to those in humans.

"Horses and humans suffer from similar illnesses, so identifying the genetic culprits in horses promises to deepen our knowledge of disease in both organisms," said co-author Kerstin Lindblad-Toh, from the Broad Institute at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, US.

"The horse genome sequence is a key enabling resource toward this goal."

To generate a high-quality genome sequence, the researchers analysed DNA from an adult female thoroughbred named Twilight.

The horse's DNA was sequenced using capillary DNA sequencing technology (known as Sanger sequencing) to reveal a genome that is roughly 2.7 billion "letters", or nucleotides, in size.

In addition to sequencing the genome of a thoroughbred horse, the researchers also examined DNA from a variety of other horse breeds.

These included the American quarter horse, Andalusian, Arabian, Belgian draft horse, Hanoverian, Hokkaido, Icelandic horse, Norwegian fjord horse, and Standardbred breeds.

The team surveyed the extent of genetic variation both within and across breeds to create a catalogue of more than one million single-letter genetic differences in these breeds.

This is slightly larger than the genome of the domestic dog, and smaller than both the human and cow genomes.

So far, scientists have also sequenced the genomes of the platypus, mouse, rat, chimpanzee, rhesus macaque and, of course, human.

Horses were first domesticated 4,000 to 6,000 years ago. Over time, as machines have become the chief sources of agricultural and industrial muscle, those roles have shifted to sport and recreational activities.

news20091108bbc2

[One-Minute World News] from [BBC NEWS]

[Science & Environment]
Page last updated at 20:50 GMT, Friday, 6 November 2009
Leaders 'likely' to go to summit
{Climate protesters say politicians are failing to show the right leadership}
At least 40 world leaders are likely to attend December's UN climate summit in a bid to secure a new global treaty.
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website, Barcelona


Some observers say only intervention from heads of state and government can close the deal, given the gulf between industrialised and developing nations.

Others maintain the harsh words bandied here at the final preparatory meeting amount to no more than posturing.

The UN's top climate official said firm US targets for reducing emissions were necessary for a deal.

"I believe the US can commit to a number [at the summit] in Copenhagen," said Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN climate convention (UNFCCC).

"There was a number in Mr Obama's campaign, there are numbers in the legislation [going through Congress] - so I believe it's perfectly possible for the US to sign up to a specific pledge."

'Fair share'

US legislation setting caps on emissions is under discussion in the Senate, and unlikely to be finalised this year.

Quizzed by reporters as to whether the US would bring an emissions target to Copenhagen, its delegation chief here, Jonathan Pershing, said it was possible but a decision had not yet been taken.

"The science demands urgent action, and the US is committed to our fair share," he said.

"Developed countries including the US must put numbers forward; developing countries except the least developed countries must [also] make commitments."

The Copenhagen summit is supposed to conclude the two-year process that began at the Bali summit two years ago of formulating a treaty to supplant the Kyoto Protocol.


Demonstrators in Copenhagen called for carbon emissions to be cut
The absence of a US target is the most glaring hole in the draft treaty's complex tapestry that weaves together concerns over reducing emissions from rich countries, reducing the rate of emissions growth in more prosperous developing nations, and providing financial assistance to the developing world.

Developing countries have regularly accused the West - and the US in particular - of failing to live up to its international obligations.

"It seems that developed countries have been negotiating with their economic interests at heart rather than [the world's] environmental interests," said Angelina Navarro Llanos, head of the Bolivian delegation.

But Mr Pershing insisted that developing countries were also to blame for the apparent impasse that earlier in the week brought a walkout from African delegations.

"Developing countries want a legal deal that applies to us but not to them," he said.

The rancour evident during the week has led some observers to conclude there is no chance of achieving a legally binding deal in Copenhagen.

Many people close to the talks - including Mr de Boer - have played down the chances of tying up a full treaty this year, and there are suggestions it could take a further full year to conclude.

'Political posturing'

But others said the picture was not as dark as it seemed, and that last-minute policy revelations and compromises were still likely.

"There's a fair degree of political posturing," said Kumi Naidoo, chair of the activist coalition tcktcktck.

"[But] some of the negotiators from developed countries have come to the conclusion that they're not going to deliver what was promised in Bali, and there's a lowering of expectations going on."

Most developed countries set out targets for reducing their emissions well before this meeting convened - and they add up to a lot less than the 40% (from 1990 levels by 2020) that developing nations are demanding.

On the face of it, this is an unbridgeable divide; but other delegates suggested the G77/China bloc of developing countries would probably settle for about 30% provided other elements of a package - such as plentiful finance - were also on offer.


All countries have been urged to take part and negotiate
Mr de Boer said the Danish conference hosts had a list of 40 heads of state or government intending to attend - though it is not known whether US President Barack Obama is among them.

Some delegates suggested only political engagement at this level could turn the current situation into a new binding agreement.

Most of the negotiating here has taken place in small groups tackling specific issues; and it is clear that progress has been uneven.

Negotiations towards an agreement on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (Redd) were progressing well, delegates said, with a good chance of agreeing something in Copenhagen that could see money begin to flow into forest protection next year.

Mr de Boer cited the transfer of clean technology from the industrialised to the developing world as another area where progress has been made.

But other areas of negotiation - notably on raising money to help poor countries adapt to climate impacts, and on commitments to reduce emissions - have clearly been more difficult.

There is still disagreement too over the legal form of a new agreement at or after Copenhagen - whether it should take the form of an extension to the Kyoto Protocol, which Mr de Boer noted was the only legal agreement in existence that had curbed carbon emissions, or another legal entity.

Elements of the draft treaty remain in the form of "non-papers", delegates said - documents that do not carry the weight of a formal negotiating text.

Delegates will convene in the Danish capital on 7 December for two weeks of negotiations; although the introduction of key elements is likely to be withheld until the final few days.

news20091108cnn

[Top stories] from [CNN.com]

[Eco Solutions]
Can cloud ships and space sun shades fix the planet?
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
> UK's scientific group, Royal Society, investigated geo-engineering ideas
> Cloud ships, artificial CO2 trees among the proposed methods
> Environmental groups against many projects: "There is no Plan B for the planet"
> Many worried that concepts could distract from cutting CO2 emissions
By Matt Ford, for CNN
November 8, 2009 -- Updated 0805 GMT (1605 HKT)

(CNN) -- In order to stop dangerous climate change we may be forced to construct giant solar shades and cover great swathes of land with artificial trees that suck up carbon dioxide.

These are the conclusions of a year-long scientific survey of "geo-engineering" technologies by the UK's Royal Academy published earlier this year. From fake trees to cloud making ships, the ideas are designed to provide planet-scale alterations to our climate if efforts to cut emissions fail.
But while the Royal Society believes some of the technologies show promise, such as firing tiny reflective particles into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight, the report sounds a strong note of caution about the potential unintended consequences of geo-engineering.

Its authors are concerned that excitement about new technology might distract from efforts to cut emissions.

"Geo-engineering is not a magic bullet and nothing we now know about any of these technologies suggests that they will be able to cancel out emissions in the near future," Professor John Shepherd, an oceanographer at Southampton University, and chair of the Royal Society working group, told CNN.

"We are not arguing for the development of these technologies, but for research that will enable us to make a sensible decision about them in the future.

"We were concerned that, particularly in the run up to Copenhagen in December, some of the hype about geo-engineering could have a negative effect on efforts to reduce emissions, which is still absolutely critical."

Bold solutions but with a high price?

But while the Royal Society argues for research rather than action, there is a growing interest in geo-engineering technology and others are much more forthright in their endorsement, even arguing that it offers an alternative to cutting emissions.

{{We need to end our fixation on cutting carbon, because experience shows us that it just isn't working}
--Bjorn Lomborg}

"We need to end our fixation on cutting carbon through deals like Kyoto and Copenhagen, because experience shows us that those just aren't working," Bjorn Lomborg, director of the think-tank the Copenhagen Consensus Center and author of "Cool It" and "The Skeptical Environmentalist", told CNN.

Research by Lomborg's own Copenhagen Consensus Center has suggested that spending $9 billion developing cloud whitening technology to reflect solar radiation might be able to cancel out this century's global warming in a relatively short timeframe, while in contrast, he argues, the shift to a low-carbon economy based on green energy could take much longer.

"Consider that electrification of the global economy is still incomplete after more than a century of effort," said Lomborg.

Any attempt at geo-engineering the Earth's climate would require massive industrial projects, and professional engineering institutions point to the potential economic, as well as environmental, benefits.

"We estimate that up to two million new jobs will be created in this sector by 2050," said Dr Tim Fox, Head of Environment and Climate Change at the UK's Institution of Mechanical Engineers, which recently issued a report arguing that geo-engineering technology could pave the way to a greener future.

"At the moment no-one is taking greenhouses gases out of the air and no-one is trying to reflect back solar radiation. If we were to do either of these they would develop into billions of tonnes of gases per year or thousands of square miles of reflective devices. That equates to probably millions not thousands of jobs worldwide."

The Institution is calling for the British Government funding of up to £20 million ($33 million) to help establish a new research center for geo-engineering, and believes both the UK and USA would be well-placed to take advantage of the new industries.

"[Geo-engineering] could operate tomorrow, but it is a double question of scale and cost. We have not done this before, and whilst we don't need any technological inventions to help us succeed, we do need to go up a learning curve," said Fox.

Russian roulette with the future of the planet

But in sharp contrast to this enthusiasm many environmental groups are strongly opposed to geo-engineering,. They argue that it is a dangerous distraction from what they see as the key issue: reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

"Geo-engineering is not a plan B for the climate," Greenpeace UK's chief scientist, Dr Doug Parr, said in a press statement.

{{Geo-engineering is not a plan B for the climate}
--Doug Parr, Greenpeace}

"It should be used only in desperation, [could have] widespread undesirable impacts, and raises major ethical and political issues of its own. It may be very expensive, and it may well never work.

"Many of these proposals still have risks - there is no simple global thermostat that can be turned up and down and proposals that reflect sunlight can still... have impacts on weather and precipitation leading to exactly the sorts of problems we are trying to avoid by averting climate change.

"Geo-engineering is now being investigated because we have collectively, as a society, failed to take on the fossil fuel interests."

Mike Childs, Head of Climate at Friends of the Earth also remains wary of the impact of many geo-engineering concepts.

"The benefits of geo-engineering are unproven," he told CNN.

"We haven't got time to play Russian roulette with the future of the planet. Science tells us we need to make quick and substantial cuts in global carbon emissions if we have any hope of avoiding runaway climate change."

There is even the risk that even if some geo-engineering projects work, they may draw humanity into further difficulties that we will struggle to manage over the long-term.

"We are not sure that some of the solar technologies are at all sustainable," said Shepherd.

"They are based on balancing one human intervention against another, and we would have to keep maintaining that balance as long as the greenhouse gasses are in the atmosphere, and that could be hundreds of years.

"We shouldn't begin something like that without understanding our exit strategy."