U.S. Pushes to Cut Emissions That Speed Climate Change

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to announce the initiative at the State Department on Thursday accompanied by officials from Bangladesh, Canada, Ghana, Mexico, Sweden and the United Nations Environment Program.

The plan will address short-lived pollutants like soot (also referred to as black carbon), methane and hydrofluorocarbons that have an outsize influence on global warming, accounting for 30 to 40 percent of global warming. Soot from diesel exhausts and the burning of wood, agricultural waste and dung for heating and cooking causes an estimated two million premature deaths a year, particularly in the poorest countries.

Scientists say that concerted action on these substances can reduce global temperatures by 0.5 degrees Celsius by 2050 and prevent millions of cases of lung and heart disease by 2030.

“This is very much in the win-win category — good on climate at the same time that it’s good on health, food production and energy,” said Todd D. Stern, the State Department’s special envoy for climate change.

“It’s not a negotiation over who takes what targets,” he said, “but a voluntary partnership aimed at producing tangible results in a relatively short period of time.”

The United States intends to contribute $12 million and Canada $3 million over two years to get the program off the ground and to help recruit other countries to participate. The United Nations Environment Program will run the project.

Officials hope that by tackling these fast-acting, climate-changing agents they can get results quicker than through the laborious and highly political negotiations conducted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or U.N.F.C.C.C. That process, involving more than 190 nations, grinds on year after year with incremental political progress but little real impact on the climate.

At the most recent United Nations climate summit meeting, in Durban, South Africa, negotiators agreed to try to produce a binding global climate change treaty by 2015, to take effect after 2020. Many scientists say that irreversible damage to the atmosphere will be done before then.

Soot, methane and hydrofluorocarbons, which are used in foam and refrigerants, have a short life span in the atmosphere, measured in weeks or years. By contrast, carbon dioxide, the primary cause of climate disruption, persists in the atmosphere for thousands of years — and its effects are much more difficult to mitigate.

Researchers have identified about a dozen ways to significantly control black carbon and methane emissions. Soot can be reduced by installing filters on diesel engines, replacing traditional cookstoves with more efficient models, modernizing brick kilns and banning the open burning of agricultural waste. Methane can be captured from oil and gas wells, leaky pipelines, coal mines, municipal landfills, wastewater treatment plants, manure piles and rice paddies.

The new initiative will provide money for developing countries to reduce short-acting pollutants and will try to raise additional public and private funds for new mitigation projects. Drew T. Shindell, a senior climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute on Space Studies, said that attacking short-lived climate agents could have immediate impacts.

“From a political point of view,” he said, “what’s really appealing about these measures is that a lot of the benefits are realized by those that take the action. If you reduce these emissions in the developing world, it’s the developing world that gets most of the benefits, by stabilizing rainfall and improving public health.”

Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, said that the initiative, if expanded and adequately financed, would have more impact on the climate than the United Nations climate change negotiations, at least in the near term.

“This is a formal declaration that we’re opening a second front in the climate war,” said Mr. Zaelke, who has been agitating for action on fast-acting climate change agents for years.

“We’d be fools to count on the U.N.F.C.C.C. for our salvation, though I wish it well,” he said. “This is a complement, not a substitute.”

View the original article here

California Congressional Delegation Braces for Change

LOS ANGELES — California’s Congressional delegation, the largest and most influential in the nation, is undergoing a major upheaval, the result of reapportionment and retirements, threatening the state’s influence in Washington next year and forcing members to scramble to withstand what is emerging as a generational wave.

Jerry Lewis, a California Republican in the House since 1979, is retiring.

Two senior Democrats, Howard Berman, above, and Brad Sherman, face each other after redistricting. But over all, Democrats stand to gain two to four seats in the state.

A quarter of the state’s 53-member delegation to Washington could be newcomers in the new Congress, analysts said, the result of at least 6 members retiring and strong contests in 10 other districts. By contrast, only one seat changed hands between parties in the course of 255 Congressional elections in California over the past 10 years.

The potential scope of the upheaval, easily the largest anywhere in the nation, is sinking in with every new retirement announcement. While some state leaders hail the change as a sign of a healthy democracy — “There’s a lot to be said about mixing it up generationally, to have a constant invigoration of Congress with new fresh eyes and fresh voices,” said Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader — it has raised concern among officials at a time when the state is reeling from the economic downturn and is counting on Washington for assistance.

As it is, California faces an already unsympathetic Congress as it seeks legislative support on extending a subway line from downtown Los Angeles out to Santa Monica, as well as financial support for building a high-speed rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco. More worrisome, state officials said, California will not have the clout it once had to withstand what are shaping up to be huge cuts in federal spending in coming years as Congress and the White House try to deal with the deficit.

The development is overshadowing what had initially attracted the most attention in the redistricting process here: that Democrats, who now control 34 seats, stand to gain two to four more.

While the full impact of redistricting is beginning to clarify in California, to the benefit of Democrats, the national battle over the process — done every decade in all the states, based on the most recent census — continues to churn. There are several court battles over it, particularly in Texas, which at 32 members has the next biggest delegation and where elections have been put on hold as the courts rule on various conflicting maps.

The main focus of campaign strategists has not been whether the final national map will benefit one party over another — there has been little doubt that Republicans, by virtue of having gained control of many statehouses in 2010, would have the edge — but rather, how much of an advantage the Republicans would have.

The new political landscape in California, at least, is evidence of the far-reaching implications of the state adopting a nonpartisan redistricting process. After years of allowing state lawmakers to determine Congressional district lines, for 2012, an independent commission, created by voters in a referendum, drew districts without an eye to protecting incumbents. The commission was not even supposed to take into account where it was that incumbent lawmakers lived.

The move has been hailed by outside groups who say government has ossified. Yet from California’s perspective, there is a price to be paid for this. The process in effect purges more senior incumbents at a time when other states continue to use redistricting processes that protect incumbents.

“The problem with a commission in one state and not the others is that the House of Representatives still relies to a great deal on a seniority system,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman, a California Democrat not threatened by the wave. “And it puts us at a disadvantage if the lines are drawn without regard to protecting some of the senior and most important members of the delegation.”

Some of the state’s most senior representatives are returning home, among them Jerry Lewis, the dean of the House Republican delegation, who took office in 1979. Two of the delegation’s more powerful Democrats — Howard L. Berman, and Brad Sherman — are engaged in a bitter primary after the redistricting process threw them into the same district. They have, between them, 45 years in the House.

David Wasserman, the House editor of The Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan political newsletter, said that California had twice the seniority of any other delegation.

View the original article here

The Lede Blog: Catholic Bishops React to Obama's Change to Birth Control Rule

Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said that he and other bishops were waiting to see the details of proposed changes to a federal rule on birth control that President Obama announced Friday before deciding whether to embrace them. The rule would require religiously affiliated hospitals and universities to provide free contraception to their female employees.

As my colleague, Helene Cooper reports, the “accommodation” made by the president would allow such institutions and organizations to avoid paying for contraceptive care. Female employees, however, would be able to gain free access to birth control through their insurance plans, Mr. Obama said.

For months, Catholic bishops have been preparing a huge campaign to fight the new rule, my colleague Laurie Goodstein reported Friday.

In addition to reading letters from bishops about religious freedom at Masses across the country last weekend, the bishops also turned to YouTube, Twitter and Facebook to make their case that the dispute was not about birth control but government interference with religious freedom.

“The government has no right … to make you obey something that is contrary to your conscience.” – Archbishop Dolan ow.ly/8YiRD

— USCCB (@USCCB) February 9, 2012

This week, Speaker John A. Boehner promised legislation aimed at banning the rule. On Friday, some members of Congress used Twitter to dismiss Mr. Obama’s compromise approach, including Representative Marlin Stutzman, Republican from Indiana. Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat from Missouri, welcomed the change.

POTUS might have shuffled the deck but he’s playing the same game. His #HHS announcement changes nothing. bit.ly/xBeZ93

— Rep. Marlin Stutzman (@RepStutzman) February 10, 2012

Glad this got worked out today.Women get access to birth control, and Catholic Health Assoc agrees with new policy.

— Claire McCaskill (@clairecmc) February 10, 2012

Some people on Twitter are using the hashtag, #iusebirthcontrol, to voice their dismay over seeing politics and religion entering the discussion about the delivery of women’s health care services.

I was raised Catholic & #iusebirthcontrol It’s none of yr damn business why. Women shouldn’t have to justify sex,health,reproductive rights.

— Andrea Bronson (@AndreaBronson) February 10, 2012

Another Twitter user wondered if Catholic leaders would now turn their attention to other government laws and policies that are not consistent with church teachings.

#altuniverse Starting tomorrow, looking fwd to the same level of anger from @USCCB to pressure Republicans on #DeathPenalty and #DreamAct

— Christopher Duffner (@chrisduffner) February 10, 2012

View the original article here

New Criteria Could Change Who Is Diagnosed With Alzheimer's

MONDAY, Feb. 6 (HealthDay News) -- New guidelines for diagnosing the mental decline that can come with several diseases of aging may create confusion among doctors and patients about who has early Alzheimer's disease and who simply has mild cognitive impairment, a new report warns.

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a mental decline in its earliest stages that's not a normal part of aging. Under previous guidelines, a patient was considered to have MCI if he or she had marked, but mild, memory problems but was otherwise functioning normally, explained Dr. John Morris, director of the Alzheimer's Disease Research Center at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

Recently, the U.S. National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association convened a work group to update criteria for MCI. Their revised guidelines cast a wider net for what qualifies. "As MCI was studied further, it was found that people with MCI often had other impairments in reasoning, visual-spatial skills and attention," Morris said.

Under the new guidelines, people with MCI can have also have problems doing daily activities, such as driving without getting disoriented, remembering to pay bills and paying the proper amount, and cooking safely. People can have MCI even if they depend on aids or assistance to complete those tasks.

Previously, what distinguished MCI from dementia was that ability to function, but the new guidelines blur the distinction, Morris noted.

"Now, there is no distinguishing line between mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer's disease dementia," said Morris, who lays out his argument in an analysis published online Feb. 6 in the Archives of Neurology. "Broadening the criteria for MCI overlaps so much with the diagnosis of very mild Alzheimer's disease that physicians won't know whether to call it very mild Alzheimer's or MCI. It adds confusion to the field."

Morris' study included more than 17,500 people with a mean age of 75 who had either normal memory and thinking skills, MCI or Alzheimer's disease dementia.

He concluded that 99.8 percent of patients currently diagnosed with "very mild" Alzheimer's dementia and just under 93 percent of those diagnosed with "mild" Alzheimer's dementia could be reclassified as having MCI, based on the revised criteria.

Some 5.4 million Americans have Alzheimer's, according to the Alzheimer's Association.

While MCI can be a first sign of the Alzheimer's, it's not necessarily so. Other causes of MCI can include medications, stroke or depression, Morris explained.

Diagnosing Alzheimer's disease is typically done through a clinical examination with a neurologist. Neuroimaging tests are conducted, to rule out other conditions that might have caused the mental decline, such as a stroke or brain tumor.

Other means of diagnosing Alzheimer's include a spinal tap that looks for certain biomarkers in the spinal fluid or specialized MRIs that can detect amyloid protein, which is associated with Alzheimer's. However, these are not typically available outside of large metropolitan hospitals or as part of medical studies.

Dr. William Thies, chief medical and scientific officer for the Alzheimer's Association, said researchers now understand that Alzheimer's is a continuum of changes in the brain that begin years, and possibly decades, before the first MCI symptoms are noticed. Alzheimer's itself, Thies said, represents "the very last, devastating changes of the disease."

"You can do a lot of damage to the brain before it will not do all the functions it's supposed to do," Thies said. "There is a period of time when you will have silent changes in your brain structure and function, a pre-symptomatic period when the changes have already begun."

Because Alzheimer's is a continuum, that means that drawing a line between MCI and Alzheimer's is, by definition, "artificial," he noted.

"We recognize those lines are artificial, and at the moment because the criteria are relatively new, they remain somewhat fuzzy," Thies said. "This is an area where we will have continued discussion over the next few years to establish consistently where to categorize folks."

When Alzheimer's is believed to be the underlying cause of MCI, physicians can offer up a diagnosis of "MCI due to AD [Alzheimer's disease]," Morris said.

Even though the diagnosis of Alzheimer's is more devastating than MCI, it's important for patients and their families to hear the truth, so that they can come to terms with the diagnosis and make the necessary plans, Morris said.

"When we think the MCI is caused by underlying Alzheimer's disease, we should go ahead and call it very early Alzheimer's," Morris said. "It's artificial to call it MCI."

According to background information in the article, 30 percent to 60 percent of doctors conceal an Alzheimer's disease diagnosis because of causing distress to the family and the patient, even though 94 percent of the same doctors would reveal a diagnosis of terminal cancer.

Dr. Gayatri Devi, an attending neurologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, said that as a result of the new criteria, "large numbers of patients will be classified as having mild cognitive impairment when in fact they're suffering from Alzheimer's disease."

"This complicates research in the area, and confuses patients and families, not to mention physicians, who've relied on functional independence as the demarcation between Alzheimer's disease and MCI," Devi said.

More information

The U.S. National Institute on Aging has more on Alzheimer's.

View the original article here