• 
• 

Published on November 22, 2007

They would then have the executive authority to take remedial action on climate deterioration, to go with the conviction borne of scientific certainty.

But if they were politicians and business leaders, each with agendas not fully theirs to define, they would be liable to temporise until looming disaster becomes their successors' problem.

The United States refused to even ratify the Kyoto Protocol because compliance, according to the Bush White House, would damage the nation's industrial competitive advantage. China, as a designated developing nation, is not subject to the emissions caps.

China wishes to be permitted to industrialise untrammelled by modern-age environmental remits, although it is beginning to see that its role in planetary protection will soon be as pivotal as America's.

This broadly is the inertia gap that will continue to exist between the scientists' scary scenarios of climate change and the will of nations and their wealth-creators to ameliorate, not so much undo, the half century of damage to Earth's natural rhythms.

No government regards as extreme the scientists' assertion that unrestrained burning of

fossil fuels and forests would raise temperatures and sea levels, and damage climate systems that sustain agriculture and water supplies.

United Nations secretary-general Ban Ki-moon said in unveiling the panel's report at the weekend that all humanity must take responsibility for the ravages that come with climate disruptions.

A clearer perspective came from the head of the panel, Rajendra Pachauri, who said it would be too late to ward off catastrophe if governments did not act in the next several years.

Concerted action is still possible, though not highly probable. An indication could come next month in Bali, when some 180 nations will discuss ways of achieving emissions controls beyond the Kyoto standards. China, India and Brazil - the developing bloc's fastest growing - have a role not less vital than America's.

A coal burner, like China, can be allowed flexibility to comply but it should come within the global framework. Asean is setting an example by including climate protection among its goals.

Meantime, old industrial nations and emergent economies could be more inclined to discipline their industries and consumer habits if they are psychologically primed to think they are controlling the release of greenhouse gases to secure their people's future, not so much the health of the planet. One is self-serving, the other sounds like a platitude. Politicians can still be brought around.

The Straits Times

The Straits Times is a member of the Asia News Network.

 

------------------------------------

Holes in the screens

Los Angeles - Six years after 9/11, airport screeners are getting pretty good at spotting terrorists - as long as they're inept amateurs.

Tests by federal agencies show, though, that there is an excellent chance that anybody who has been trained to get past airport security - like, say, a member of al-Qaeda - will succeed in their mission.

The latest blow to public confidence in air travel and safety came last week with the release of a report by the Government Accountability Office, which revealed that investigators smuggled components for liquid-based bombs past screeners at 19 American airports.

They were able to do this not because they had inside information on Transportation Security Administration screening techniques, but because they scanned publicly available TSA materials and then designed ways to get past security.

What's more, they succeeded even though Transportation Security Administration personnel had apparently been tipped off. An internal agency memo, which was the subject of a congressional hearing last week, included physical descriptions of some testers and gave details on their methods.

The report follows recent news that screeners at Los Angeles International Airport missed 75 per cent of the fake bombs that investigators tried to smuggle onto planes during tests two years ago.

The excuse from TSA officials: the tests were difficult and designed to trip up screeners. Whereas al-Qaeda will doubtless hide its bombs in brightly marked packages.

In congressional testimony, TSA administrator Kip Hawley emphasised that the screeners who missed bomb parts during the GAO investigation represent just one layer of airport security, which also includes bomb-sniffing dogs and airline crews trained in self-defence.

That might provide an iota of comfort, though some of those extra layers are questionable.

The Transportation Security Administration, for example, has recently been experimenting with controversial techniques such as behavioural screening. Nearly 2,000 employees have been trained to look for signs of stress or other unusual behaviour; suspicious passengers are subject to questioning or searches.

According to USA Today, 43,000 travellers have been flagged by behaviour-detecting screeners since January 2006, resulting in 278 arrests, none on terrorism-related charges.

Sceptics have suggested that any random sweep of 43,000 passengers might have turned up as many criminals.

Whether such techniques work or not, it's clear that what really needs attention is the basic observational skills of airport screeners. Coming technology will undoubtedly help, but until it arrives, federal agencies should step up their tests -and dismiss screeners who consistently fail them.

Los Angeles Times