1 As economic pain bites, Europe may ease climate
rules (Stephen Castle in The New York Times) For years, Europe has tried to set
the global standard for climate-change regulation, creating tough rules on
emissions, mandating more use of renewable energy sources and arguably
sacrificing some economic growth in the name of saving the planet. But now even
Europe seems to be hitting its environmentalist limits.
High energy costs, declining industrial
competitiveness and a recognition that the economy is unlikely to rebound
strongly any time soon are leading policy makers to begin easing up in their
drive for more aggressive climate regulation. The European Union has proposed
an end to binding national targets for renewable energy production after 2020.
Instead, it substituted an overall European goal that is likely to be much
harder to enforce.
It also decided against proposing laws on
environmental damage and safety during the extraction of shale gas by a
controversial drilling process known as fracking. It opted instead for a series
of minimum principles it said it would monitor. Europe pressed ahead on other
fronts, aiming for a cut of 40 percent in Europe’s carbon emissions by 2030,
double the current target of 20 percent by 2020. Officials said the new
proposals were not evidence of diminished commitment to environmental
discipline but reflected the complicated reality of bringing the 28 countries
of the European Union together behind a policy.
Friends of the Earth, an environmental group,
described the proposals as “totally inadequate” and “off the radar of what
climate science tells us to do in Europe to avoid climate catastrophe.” The
energy and climate debate, which is playing out across Europe, reflects similar
trade-offs being made around the world on mending economic problems today or
addressing the environmental problems of tomorrow. José Manuel Barroso, the
president of the European Commission, defended the new proposals as a
hard-fought compromise and proof that it “is possible to make a marriage
between industry and climate action.”
“Just as it is wrong to invest in tobacco companies that are polluting our lungs, it’s morally bankrupt to invest in companies that are polluting the entire planet,” said Jay Carmona, national divestment campaign manager for 350.org, a climate change activism group. Leslie Samuelrich, president of Green Capital Management, a Boston firm specializing in environmentally responsible investment, says “If people are looking for firms with a track record on fossil-fuel-free, there aren’t that many”.
Samuelrich argues that there’s a strong financial case for divestment. Some climate experts believe that in order to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius, most of the world’s known reserves of oil, coal and natural gas must be left in the ground, unused. That would saddle oil companies with huge stranded assets and could gut their stock prices, a scenario known as the “carbon bubble.” The scenario, Samuelrich says, is real. “No one can predict when it will happen,” she said. “But if you’re left holding those stocks when we get carbon controls, these assets are going to be left in the ground. In 5, 10 years, it’s not like any investment adviser will be able to say that no one saw this coming.”
3 China manufacturing contracts (BBC) China's
manufacturing sector, a key driver of its economic growth, contracted in
January, an initial survey by HSBC has indicated. The bank's Purchasing
Managers' Index (PMI), a gauge of the sector's health, fell to 49.6 from 50.5
in December. A reading below 50 shows contraction. It is the first time in six
months the reading has fallen below that level.
The reading
comes just days after data showed that China's growth rate slowed in the last
three months of 2013. The world's second-largest economy expanded 7.7% in the
October-to-December quarter, from a year ago. That was slightly down from 7.8%
growth in the previous three months. However, China's full-year growth in 2013
matched that for 2012 as its economy expanded at an annual rate of 7.7% during
the year. Despite that some analysts have warned that its pace of expansion may
slow this year.
The law, first introduced in 1986, stipulates that the suspected suicide or the suspicious death of a woman who has been married less than seven years must be subject to an inquest by a magistrate. Similarly, with cases in which the family of the woman requests such an inquest, or if a police officer has any reason to think it necessary, an inquiry must take place.
Five decades since dowry was criminalized, it remains a common practice in India. Over 8,600 cases of dowry deaths were registered in India in 2011, up from 8,391 the year before and just over 6,000 in 2002, according to the latest figures from the National Crime Records Bureau. There is no specific rationale behind the choice of seven years as the window within which such inquests are automatically carried out, but the first few years of marriage were regarded as the most tumultuous for women living with in-laws and often the period during which demands for extra dowry were the most persistent, said Indira Jaising, India’s senior-most female federal lawyer.
Demands for dowry allegedly drove a Delhi police woman, Preeti Dhaka, who probed dowry cases herself, to take her own life in 2013. Police have charged her husband, his mother and sister for harassing Ms. Dhaka into killing herself and inflicting cruelty on her. The suspects in the case are awaiting trial and have denied wrongdoing.
http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2014/01/22/why-india-has-a-seven-year-rule-governing-death-in-marriage/
No comments:
Post a Comment