British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was the very first major world leader to call for concerted action to deal with climatic change and the resultant global warming. “No generation has a freehold on this Earth”, she said, “all we have is really a life tenancy having a full repairing lease”. In reality, obviously, there has been no landlord’s inspection for a long time and also the fabric of the Earth is being continually damaged by our economic activities.

The case of worldwide warming is easily the most insidious from the running repairs that people are neglecting to make: in fact the longer we ignore it, the more difficult and expensive it will be to put right. Just how much it would cost now versus in the future and in which the money should originate from is really a hotly debated political issue however in this article I’d like to show readers that it is the political dimensions, not the technical dimensions which are most pressing because we can slow global warming down or even stop it.

What makes climatic change such is difficult political problem is the all pervasiveness from it: nothing you’ve seen prior within our history has got the entire life-style need of the human species must be overhauled. We have built our industrial civilisation on the basis of energy from fossil fuels, giving us temporary benefit but at the cost of long term danger. Politically, we want not only address the roll-out of new powers but also the approach we take to take into account the economical system that fools us into thinking that non-renewable fuels are “cheap”. However, humanity only has two paths forward at this point. Either we voluntarily change to a low-carbon, low-oil, low-net water use, low-net-material use economy over the next 2 decades or even the collapse in our natural systems forces us to do this around 2030: not even a working life away. The people who will begin to suffer most from our inaction are already on the planet.

As you may imagine, with such a massive problem there isn’t any single “solution”, instead there’s a whole couple of what Princeton University calls “stabilization wedges”: strategies and/or technologies that more than a time of several decades each ultimately reduce projected global carbon emissions by one billion metric tons per year. Human activity currently causes around 8 billion tons per year to be emitted and projected economic growth will see that rise to 16 billion tons by 2050. Princeton have identified “wedges” of action which will each reduce emissions by 1 billion tons per year.

Remember, though the “one” solution that exists may be the deployment of all things we are able to; to bring that about we want the political will to do it. Politicians do react to what electorates want, to help you participate the answer by letting them know to do something, now.

The challenge to the world would be to peak carbon emissions by around 2020, then drop at least 60% by 2050 after which reach near zero net carbon emissions by 2100. As we implement the wedges in four decades, we should be able to slow the rate increase in CO2 concentrations, stabilise and, even, begin to reduce them

The fundamental technique is to replace virtually all coal use as quickly as possible, electrify transportation whenever possible and end deforestation plus replace much of what has been lost.

Here are the detailed actions, each billion a lot of reduced emissions is referred to as a “wedge”:

1 wedge from vehicle efficiency – all cars 60 mpg, with no rise in miles travelled per vehicle: this is already common among European vehicles

1 wedge from wind power – this could need one million large wind generators to be installed, an incredible growth chance of the economy

1 wedge from electrification of vehicles transport, although, obviously this also must come from renewable resources. Ultimately all cars will be plug-in hybrids or pure electric vehicles.

3 wedges from concentrated solar thermal (aka solar base load) power plants. This technology can generate as much electricity as “conventional” gas or coal powered stations and, through the use of heat storage, can operate Twenty-four hours a day.

3 wedges from improved efficiency of one’s use. Considering the fact that coal-fired electricity generation is only around 30% efficient which buildings generally vent a lot of the expensive heat (or higher heat and need expensive cooling) this ought to be one of the quickest and easiest solution to achieve.

1 wedge from solar photovoltaic, mostly small scale, domestic generation of electricity. Britain introduced a “Feed in Tarrif” this year which encouraged around 20,000 installations in that year, several that’s expected to grow, quickly.

1 wedge from nuclear power: not strictly a renewable source but it’s a minimal carbon technology.

2 wedges from forestry through an end to all tropical and old growth boreal deforestation coupled with a massive replanting exercise. The total forest lost in the last century covers an area equal to about this of continental U.S. Replacing that loss could be sped along by adoption of new thinking on, for instance how we farm the land. There is a form of agriculture called Agroforestry, which integrates trees with farming, for example lines of trees with crops growing together (alley cropping), hedgerows, living fences, windbreaks, pasture trees, woodlots, and several other farming patterns. Agroforestry increases biodiversity, supports wildlife, provides firewood, fertilizer, forage, food and much more, raises the soil, raises the water, benefits the farmers, benefits everyone.

1 wedge from conservation efforts and changed behaviour and dietary changes (much more vegetables, a smaller amount meat).

1 wedge through artificial increases with what is called the “albedo” of the planet (the ability to reflect heat away from the surface). This is achieved through white roofs and pavement in the style traditionally used in Greece, for instance

The suggestions above technologies are available now and the following additional wedges require some major advances in applied research but they are considered plausible within the next 20 years.

Geothermal and ocean-based renewables i.e. tidal, wave, and/or ocean thermal could contribute at least 1 wedge.

Biomass co-firing with coal plus carbon capture and storage is a huge hope, even though carbon capture technologies have to date been very difficult to develop and also the risk of the stored co2 escaping worries many environmentalists.

Cellulosic bio-fuels for long-distance transport and aviation remains controversial because it would occupy around 8% from the world’s cropland, which has obvious implications for feeding the growing world population.

Applying improved agricultural practices to any or all existing croplands and/or “charcoal created by pyrolysis of biomass” are controversial today, but tend to offer great benefits.

The size from the change necessary is staggering but I believe that humans are at their finest when given enormous challenge. If we delay a full decade until 2020 before getting serious, then we will need to deploy more wedges, faster. And, by then, adaptation will just be as politically tough just as real mitigation, but considerably more costly and not as good at reducing future misery.

The word “development” has become a by-word following the World war ii caused by the growing attention of the industrialized West towards the conditions from the Third World countries. Since then, the idea has become various perspectives. Ironically, at times the interpretation has caused debates, conflict and division, at the expenses of those who’s the actual subject and never merely an item of development.

At its broadest, development means quite simply “improving society.” Since the society comprises no more than the people it is comprised of, development, therefore, can mean, “enabling individuals to achieve their aspirations.” The choice of the term “enabling” instead of “providing” connotes that true development is performed by people not to people. The government and non-government organizations or networks through various programs and services might coordinate such development, however the people themselves achieve it.

Understanding development is much more comprehensive when make the context from the reason why it was introduced, i.e. poverty. Poverty is a worldwide phenomenon resulting from defects in the socio-economic, political and cultural structures. It is not restricted to low income, but also lack or limited use of socio-economic services and opportunities.

Two conflicting views have been prevalent on the root cause of poverty. Some believe the poor have the effect of their poverty, claiming that society offers everyone equal chance to develop. But many does not grab this. Others have already resigned to being poor with little or no motivation to enhance themselves. Oscar Lewis labeled this as the Culture of Poverty. The other view puts the blame to the society which is harsh and discriminatory towards the poor. Either way, wealth or poverty, is a product of unequal distribution of resources within a society.

Since World War II, development has undergone changes in its perspective. From economic growth to sustainable development, the modification passed with the following perspectives: distributive justice, affirmative action, central planning, participatory development, and sustainable development.

Economic Growth connotes increase in per capita income or increase in Gross National Product. While the initial advantages of growth go the rich, it is presumed to eventually trickle right down to poor people. However, experience proves otherwise. For there are systemic sieves that filter the flow to the bottom. Usually the fruits of development are not distributed. The economic growth does not trickle down. Instead, it further aggravates the disparities.

Such realization leads to the modification in perspective involving distributive pattern from the rise in income. Distributive Justice provides equality of opportunity and resources that strengthen an individual’s capabilities to function towards well-being. Subsequently, development is viewed as an Affirmative Action to remedy past discrimination in education, training, and employment. Some states strengthen this approach through legislations.

Thereafter, development has been associated with planning i.e. Central Planning. While in certain cases, this model has turned a backward country right into a world-class superpower, like in case of Russia in 1960s, it’s also limitations. Observably, some countries seem to lag behind the ones that undertake less centralized approach. A new paradigm emerged promoting market economy. It espouses the philosophy that “more heads are superior to one” to sustain productive, durable change.

In development activities, the mainstream “top-down” approach has also experienced failure to elicit support from the bottom- the supposedly beneficiary. More often, the brilliance of technocrats and planning experts and also the resultant beautiful plans do not really solve the issue. Due to the fact the supposed beneficiaries are not involve in the plan. Hence, the lack of support as plans don’t respond to their demands.

New paradigm soon surfaced, relying on the emerging people centered principles. In international relief and development organizations, the people centered practice became Participatory Development. It seeks to interact local populations in development projects. Their participation is crucial within the creation, content and conduct of the program or policy designed to change their lives. Participation requires recognition and use of local capacities and avoids the imposition of priorities externally. Under this paradigm, poor people are thought part in initiatives created for their benefit. Their participation will assure the success and sustainability of project.