Categories
Economics Environment Science & technology

[565] Of spurious carbon emission reporting?

I’ve just read a piece written by Beth Romulo and published by Philippines-based Manila Bulletin Online regarding the new Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate.

I have no problem with the article save one point:

The new agreement is not intended to replace the Kyoto protocol, Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick explained, when the agreement was announced, but to complement it, by bringing in the developing countries, and offering them the most modern technology to help lower emissions. Despite the fact that the US did not ratify the Kyoto pact, it has proceeded voluntarily and been able to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 0.3 percent while the EU’s 25 members have increased to 3.4 percent.

Wow. According to him, the US has been able to reduce carbon emission by 0.3%. Moreover , that sentence that touches on US vs. EU emission is written as weaselly as it could be written.

Why is it spurious?

The author says that there is a drop but fails to give the time frame. Is it year to year basis? Is it 2005 against 1990?

According to BBC, “the US carbon dioxide emissions have increased to more than 15% above 1990 levels.” Moreover, Washington Post says the US 2004 emission level has increased by 1.7%.

I could give him a benefit of a doubt and assume he meant a reduction for the year 2005 (despite that there are 5 more months before the year ends). However, mind you at the same time that the US targets 18% reduction in emission intensity, not reduction of 18% of emission level. There is a huge different in intensity and level and this is where the US has been able to do. The US has been able to reduce the intensity and I think the author of the article us confused with the two terms.

More about emission intensity from the same article by Washington Post:

Connaughton, the chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, and other administration officials said they are focused on obtaining practical commitments industrialized countries can meet without damaging their economies. He said that although some G-8 countries are struggling to meet their goal of bringing greenhouse gas emissions down to 1990 levels by 2012, the United States is on track to fulfill its pledge to reduce its carbon intensity — how much emissions are rising relative to overall economic growth — 18 percent by 2012.

On Thursday, the Energy Information Administration announced that the nation’s carbon emissions rose 1.7 percent in 2004 — but that amounted to a 2.6 percent drop in carbon intensity, because the U.S. economy grew 4.4 percent that year. The rate of increase in U.S. carbon emissions more than doubled from 2003 to 2004 because of heightened economic activity.

Now, I’m not saying reducing in emission intensity undesireble. Quite the contrary, any reduction is good to me. But this Beth Romulo needs to recognize which is which or else, misinformation might be spread out whenever he writes anything about greenhouse gases emission.

Categories
Humor Liberty

[564] Of truth is stranger than fiction

From Samizdata:

The bureaucratic mind at work, from the WSJ Political Diary:

Before deploying from Savannah, Georgia to Iraq by a chartered airliner, the troops of the 48th Brigade Combat Team, a National Guard unit, had to go through the same security checks as any other passengers. Lt. Col. John King, the unit’s commander, told his 280 fellow soldiers that FAA anti-hijacking regulations require passengers to surrender pocket knives, nose hair scissors and cigarette lighters. ‘If you have any of those things,’ he said, almost apologetically, ‘put them in this box now.’ The troops were, however, allowed to keep hold of their assault rifles, body armour, helmets, pistols, bayonets and combat shotguns” — reported in the Air Finance Journal.

What can I say?

Categories
Society Sports

[563] Of Anglicization of Malay language

A couple of days ago, I read a blog entry with huge bolded letters slapped on top of it. The entry talked about the current Anglicization process of the Malay language. Like the person that blogged about it first, I despise this trend.

Beforehand, I must say I am no purist. Despite my tongue is stamped with the word Malay all over it, my grasp of my mother tongue is almost pathetic. My Malay vocabulary is kind of limited and I’m more comfortable writing in English to Malay though I frequently confuse my tense forms. Given my situation, I do understand why when certain people speak in Malay, they tend to talk in both Malay and English at the same time.

However, this should not be used by the press as an excuse.

I cringe whenever I see any word that sounds English but is written instead in Malay in form that adheres to English pronunciation, particularly whenever mainstream Malay media uses it. Like previu or bajet for instance. The Malay word for preview beats me but bajet, can’t the media just use the good old peruntukan or belanjawan? And just yesterday in Utusan Malaysia, an article talked about polygamy and guess which word the author of the article chose? Polemik.

And then there are akauntabiliti, integriti, transparensi, profil, kontroversi, emosi, posisi. Whatever happened to the words ketanggungjawaban, kebolehpercayaan, ketelusan, rumusan (help me on this), kegamatan (whoa, I totally need a Malay dictionary), perasaan, kedudukan?

Adding more to the list: cif (cheif), propisi (proportion), kondisi (condition), ambisi (ambition).

And yeah, one more word, OMFG – infotainment. WTF?

I haven’t been using Malay extensively for the past five or six years and I might be off the road whenever Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka added more words to Malay vocabulary but if this is the trend, let’s all just use English instead. Save the entire effort of translating – transposing is more like it – and let’s all write in English instead. There is no need to spend resources on Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka anymore.

In France I heard, they have language vigilantes to protect the French language. They arm themselves with everything they’ve got in a crusade against English encroachment on French. Dewan Bahasa should emulate the French vigilantes, not the French gut. (Thousand apologies to all Frenchies and any Francophile. I can’t help it)

I’m telling Dewan Bahasa to be a purist. They should be a purist. It is their job to defend the Malay language. Who else should defend the Malay language if not Dewan Bahasa? Samy Vellu?

Dewan Bahasa is slacking so bad that a person that brought this up in that blog that I mentioned earlier is a Malaysian Chinese, not a Malaysian Malay. How sad is that?

p/s – did I mention that Ajax won against PSV?

Categories
Sports

[562] Of Ajax vs Brøndby

It’s official. Ajax will meet Brøndby in the third preliminary round of the Champions League. Both teams will meet in Copenhagen on August 10 and later in Amsterdam on August 24. Brøndby secures a meeting with Ajax after drilling Dynamo Tbilisi 5 – 1 on aggregate.

I’m not sure whether it will be a breeze for Ajax or not. Frankly, I haven’t been following Ajax’s transfer activities during the summer and I’ve only started to revisit Ajax USA cum ajaxtalk forum in the last few weeks. I do know however, there is no big signing for Ajax while van der Vaart is gone to Germany.

God. I’ve forgotten how much fun it is to visit a soccer forum. In Ajax forum, at least in the last few years of my carrier as a forum participant, there is a repeating theme – the love for Italian players. But I’m digressing.

Anyway, in the recent Amsterdam Tournament, Ajax finished last; Ajax lost 1 – 0 to Arsenal and later, to Boca Juniors by the same score line. I’m not sure whether that is encouraging or not but according to reports, Ajax played quite well and was simply unlucky. On the side note, Ajax has got to stop playing Arsenal. OMG, every year, it’s all about Arsenal, Arsenal and Arsenal. If Ajax is going to meet Arsenal again this season in the Champions League group stage (of which thank goodness, that prospect is too minute for me too worry on), I’m going to be an ardent supporter of the Red Devils. With van der Sar on that cursed team, I think I could live with that, temporarily.

But all this talk about Champions League should be shoven aside at the moment because tomorrow, Ajax will be up against the evil farmers from the light bulb city of Eindhoven. Yes, it is the evil P$V, Chelsea’s satellite club, or so it seems. The stake?

The Johan Cruijff Shield. The shield itself is nothing but winning against PSV is something.

With that, let us welcome back the Eredivisie.

Hup Ajax hup!

Categories
ASEAN Economics Environment

[561] Of haze and the need to invade Indonesia

There was one time when I could see the Petronas Twin Towers clearly from my home in Kuala Lumpur. At the moment however, the view is kind of hazy, no thanks to Indonesia.

In ASEAN, there is a treaty known as Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (pdf). Basically, it encourages parties of the treaty to cooperate with each other in combating haze. As of August 2005, seven ASEAN members have ratified the agreement. They are Brunei, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. It is, however too bad that none of the parties is a major contributor to the – the one prime source of this haze, Indonesia, has yet to ratify the treaty.

ASEAN members need to pressure Indonesia into signing this treaty. Forget about Myanmar’s progress towards democracy for awhile. I don’t think Malaysians and indeed Singaporeans should care for Myanmar if we all are going to choke ourselves to death with Indonesian smog. We should criticize Indonesia first and Myanmar second unless Myanmar somehow gets some sort of nuclear warhead from North Korea.

ASEAN politicians have praised Indonesia for reducing open burning in Sumatra. But surely, praise or no praise, Indonesia is not doing enough. ASEAN’s worst haze happened in 1998 and since then, several ASEAN members have themselves covered by smog yearly. More needs to be done and Indonesia’s ratification of the transboundary haze pollution treaty is a great jumpstart towards improving the air quality in Southeast Asia.

If Indonesia lacks the resources needed to implement enforcement against open burning, I’m sure Malaysia and Singapore and even Brunei could offer assistance in term of manpower and monetary aid.

If nothing could convince Indonesia to tie up its shoelaces, then Malaysia and Singapore should team up and invade Indonesia, divide Sumatra among themselves and solve this haze problem once and for all.

Or, we, about 25 million Malaysians plus a couple millions of Singaporeans could together take a deep breath and blow the haze towards Jakarta. Let’s see if they like their own shit.

Or the Malaysian government could build fat ass fans that could redirect the haze towards Jakarta. Or at least until all the haze reaches Singapore… err, I mean Indonesia.

God, this haze thing is driving me nut.

p/s – Oh, if you are reading this David, don’t let Monika read this. Else, the grand scheme to grab Sumatra would fail!

pp/s – I’m moving to a new host soon. So, please bookmark www.maddruid.com instead of my current url.