data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d6aeb/d6aebda9484a0854df7a98f1c5d3dbbac16a8108" alt=""
I thank God for the opportunity and blessing that He gives me day-by-day
Credits to Ramli Ibrahim for the inspiration too!
Ahimsa
Tun Abdul Razak The Musical sets the course for the public to get to know the second prime minister through song and story.
IT’S a journey down the history books when Tun Abdul Razak The Musical rolls out at Istana Budaya in Kuala Lumpur from Aug 16-20. The ambitious and heartfelt production started when the students of Aswara (National Dance Culture and Heritage Academy) staged the musical successfully at the academy’s Experimental Theatre in October last year.
Aimed at staging the musical on a bigger scale this time around, Aswara engaged professional actors Rashidi Ishak and Fauziah Latiff and Datuk Rahim Razali as director.
It seeks to pay homage to Malaysia’s second prime minister, the late Tun Abdul Razak, his personal life and leadership before his untimely death in 1976. Tun Abdul Razak was responsible for setting up Barisan Nasional and conceptualising the New Economic Policy.
(Source:The Star Online)We all have a stake in ensuring that climate change is stopped. We turned to climate scientists to tell us about global warming. Now we need to turn to climate economists to enlighten us about the benefits, costs and possible outcomes from different responses to this challenge.
World leaders are meeting in Copenhagen in December to forge a new pact to tackle global warming. Should they continue with plans to make carbon-cutting promises that are unlikely to be fulfilled? What could be achieved by planting more trees, cutting methane or reducing black soot emissions? Is it sensible to focus on a technological solution to warming? Or should we just adapt to a warmer world?
Much of the policy debate remains focused on cutting carbon, but there are many ways to go about repairing the global climate. Our choices will result in different outcomes and different costs.
Many methods of atmospheric engineering have been proposed. Solar radiation management appears to be one of the most hopeful. Atmospheric greenhouse gases allow sunlight to pass through but absorb heat and radiate some down to the Earth's surface. All else being equal, higher concentrations will warm the planet. Solar radiation management would bounce a little sunlight back into space. Reflecting only 1 per cent to 2 per cent of the total sunlight that strikes the Earth could offset as much warming as that caused by doubling pre-industrial levels of greenhouse gases.
When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, about a million tons of sulphur dioxide were pumped into the stratosphere, reacting with water to form a hazy layer that spread around the globe and – by scattering and absorbing incoming sunlight – cooled the Earth's surface for almost two years. We could mimic this effect through stratospheric aerosol insertion – essentially launching material such as sulphur dioxide or soot into the stratosphere.
Another promising approach is marine cloud whitening, which sprays sea-water droplets into marine clouds to make them reflect more sunlight. This augments the natural process, where sea salt from the oceans provides water vapour with the cloud condensation nuclei.
It is remarkable to consider that we could cancel out this century's global warming with 1,900 unmanned ships spraying sea-water mist into the air to thicken clouds. The total cost would be about $9-billion, and the benefits of preventing the temperature increase would add up to $20-trillion. That is the equivalent of doing $2,000 worth of good with every dollar spent.
Many of the risks of climate engineering have been overstated. Marine cloud whitening would not lead to permanent atmospheric changes, and could be used only when needed. Turning sea water into clouds is a natural process. The biggest challenge is public perception. Many environmental lobbyists oppose even researching climate engineering. This is startling, given the manifold benefits. If we care about avoiding warmer temperatures, it seems we should be elated that this simple, cost-effective approach shows so much promise.
Climate engineering could remain a backup option in case of necessity. Or we could put it on the agenda today. In either case, there's a commanding case for its serious consideration. We're on track to being the generation that wasted decades bickering over carbon-emission cuts and failed to stop the harmful effects of warming. That would be a shameful legacy – one that could be avoided by rethinking climate policy.
Bjorn Lomborg is author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming. He is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School
Copyright © 2008 the walk of my life | Design by Styleshout, Template Blogger by Blog and Web