Global warming benefits to Tibet

AFP

BEIJING: Global warming could prove devastating for the Tibetan plateau, the world's third-largest store of ice, but it helps farming and tourism, Chinese state media said Tuesday, citing a leading expert.
Qin Dahe, the former head of the China Meteorological Administration, made the comment in an otherwise gloomy assessment of the impact that rising temperatures will have on Tibet, according to the China Daily newspaper.
"Warming is good for agriculture and tourism. It has increased the growing season of crops," said Qin, now a researcher with the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
China is banking on tourism to help fund development in Tibet, one of its poorest regions, hoping that a railway to the region's capital Lhasa will boost visitor numbers.
From January to July this year, more than 2.7 million tourists visited Tibet, nearly triple the number in the same period of 2008, the Tibet Daily said recently.
While agriculture and tourism stand to benefit, Qin underlined a series of negative consequences that global warming will have in Tibet and surrounding areas.
Temperatures are rising four times faster than elsewhere in China, and the Tibetan glaciers are retreating at a higher speed than in any other part of the world, he told the paper.
"In the short term, this will cause lakes to expand and bring floods and mudflows," Qin told the paper.
"In the long run, the glaciers are vital lifelines for Asian rivers, including the Indus and the Ganges. Once they vanish, water supplies in those regions will be in peril."

Source: The Himalayan Times

“The New Know-Nothingism: Five Myths about Immigration”

Myth #1: America is being overrun with immigrants.

In one sense, of course, this is true, but in that sense it has been true since Christopher Columbus arrived. Except for the real Native Americans, we are a nation of immigrants. It is not true, however, that the first generation immigrants share of our population is growing. As of 1990, foreign born people made up only 8 percent of the population, as compared with a figure of about 15 percent from 1870 to 1920. Between 70 and 80 percent of those who immigrate every year are refugees or immediate relatives of U.S. Citizens. Much of the anti-immigrant fervor is directed against the undocumented, but they make up only 13 percent of all immigrants residing in the United States, and only 1 percent of the American population. Contrary to popular belief, most such aliens do not cross the border illegally but enter legally and remain after their student or visitor visa expires. Thus, building a wall at the border, no matter how high, will not solve the problem.

Myth #2: Immigrants take jobs from U.S. citizens.

There is virtually no evidence to support this view, probably the most wide-spread misunderstanding about immigrants. As document by a 1994 A.C.L.U. Immigrants’ Rights Project report, numerous studies have found that immigrants actually create more jobs than they fill. The jobs immigrants take are of course easier to see, but immigrants are often highly productive, run their own businesses and employ both immigrants and citizens. One study found that Mexican immigration to Los Angeles County between 1970 and 1980 was responsible for 78,000 new jobs. Governor Mario Cuomo reports that immigrants own more than 40,000 companies in New York, which provide thousands of jobs and $3.5 billion to the state’s economy every year.

Myth #3: Immigrants are a drain on society’s resources.

This claim fuels many of the recent efforts to cut off government benefits to immigrants. However, most studies have found that immigrants are a net benefit to the economy because, as a 1994 Urban Institute report concludes, “immigrants generate significantly more in taxes paid than they cost in services received.” The Council of Economic Advisers similarly found in 1986 that “immigrants have a favorable effect on the overall standard of living.” Anti-immigrant advocates often cite studies purportedly showing the contrary, but these generally focus only on taxes and services at the local or state level. What they fail to explain is that because most taxes go to the federal government such studies would also show a net loss when applied to citizens. At most, such figures suggest that some redistribution of federal and state monies may be appropriate; they say nothing unique about the costs of immigrants. Some subgroups of immigrants plainly impose a net cost in the short run, principally those who have most recently arrived and have not yet “made it.” California, for example, bears substantial costs for its disproportionately large undocumented population, largely because it has on average the poorest and least educated immigrants. But that has been true of every wave of immigrants that has ever reached our shores; it was as true of the Irish in the 1850s, for example, as it is of Salvadorans today. From a long-term perspective, the economic advantages of immigration are undeniable. Some have suggested that we might save money and diminish incentives to immigrate illegally if we denied undocumented aliens public services. In fact, undocumented immigrants are already ineligible for most social programs, with the exception of education for schoolchildren, which is constitutionally required, and benefits directly related to health and safety, such as emergency medical care and nutritional assistance to poor women, infants and children. To deny such basic care to people in need, apart from being inhumanly callous, would probably cost us more in the long run by exacerbating health problems that we would eventually have to address.

Myth #4: Aliens refuse to assimilate, and are depriving us of our cultural and political unity.

This claim has been made about every new group of immigrants to arrive on U.S. shores. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field wrote in 1884 that the Chinese “have remained among us a separate people, retaining their original peculiarities of dress, manners, habits, and modes of living, which are as marked as their complexion and language.” Five years later, he upheld the racially based exclusion of Chinese immigrants. Similar claims have been made over different periods of our history about Catholics, Jews, Italians, Eastern Europeans and Latin Americans. In most instances, such claims are simply not true; “American culture” has been created, defined and revised by per-sons who for the most part are descended from immigrants once seen as antiassimilationist. Descendants of the Irish Catholics, for example, a group once decried as separatist and alien, have become Presidents, senators and representatives (and all of these in one family, in the case of the Kennedys). Our society exerts tremendous pressure to conform, and cultural separatism rarely survives a generation. But more important, even if this claim were true, is this a legitimate rationale for limiting immigration in a society built on the values of pluralism and tolerance?

Myth #5: Noncitizen immigrants are notentitled to constitutional rights.

Our government has long declined to treat immigrants as full human beings, and nowhere is that more clear than in the realm of constitutional rights. Although the Constitution literally extends the fundamental protections in the Bill of Rights to all people, limiting to citizens only the right to vote and run for federal office, the federal government acts as if this were not the case. In 1893 the executive branch successfully defended a statute that required Chinese laborers to establish their prior residence here by testimony of “at least one credible white witness.” The Supreme Court ruled that this law was constitutional because it was reasonable for Congress to presume that nonwhite witnesses could not be trusted. The federal government is not much more enlightened today. In a pending case I’m handling in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Clinton Administration has argued that permanent resident aliens lawfully living here should be extended no more First Amendment rights than aliens applying for first-time admission from abroad — that is, none. Under this view, students at a public university who are citizens may express themselves freely, but students who are not citizens can be deported for saying exactly what their classmates are constitutionally entitled to say. Growing up, I was always taught that we will be judged by how we treat others. If we are collectively judged by how we have treated immigrants--those who appear to be “other” but will in a generation be “us” — we are not in very good shape.

David Cole, the author of “Five Myths About Immigration,” explains thoroughly what the five common myths are regarding immigrants entering the United States.

5 Countries Where Marijuana is Legal (Almost!)

Marijuana users have always sought legal loopholes in countries
where it is illegal to own or smoke it. Many people choose to
buy marijuana seeds (which is legal in many places), then grow
and smoke their own (which is not!) But every marijuana smoker
has probably dreamed at one point or another of living in a
country where marijuana is legal – or at least where the "rules"
concerning possession are so lax that it is effectively legal.

Most people know about Holland's famously relaxed laws
regarding marijuana (which is why it doesn't feature on the list
below!) While no other country has achieved such high profile
recognition for making marijuana legal, a number of places
around the world have quietly relaxed their laws concerning
possession for personal use. In most of these countries,
possession still remains technically illegal, but penalties are
not enforced if you are within certain guidelines – this is
known as decriminalisation.

So, if living in a country where marijuana possession isn't
punished by the law sounds like heaven, here are five places you
should consider emigrating!

Argentina

After a recent court debate about whether or not to punish
those who buy and grow marijuana, Argentina has effectively made
marijuana legal if it is in small quantities for personal use. A
leading judge in Argentina even decided that it was
"unconstitutional" to legislate against marijuana possession!
Those who buy marijuana seeds and grow their own are also
leniently treated, so long as they are growing a small number of
plants. The country is also notably supportive of several
medical marijuana programs.

Australia

Before you go booking a one way ticket to Sydney, make sure you
do your research. Different regions have different rules, but
Western Australia, Southern Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and
Queensland have all decriminalised marijuana to a certain
degree. In Tasmania, Victoria and Queensland, police have taken
to "ticketing" those caught with less than 50 grams of marijuana
rather than arresting them, and Western and Southern Australia
have instituted on the spot fines for minor possession rather
than official warnings or arrests.

Belgium

Since 2003, the Belgian government has made the possession and
use of marijuana legal under the following conditions:

•The amount possessed is 5 grams or less
•You are over 18
•You do not smoke in the presence of minors
•You do not smoke in public

You can buy marijuana seeds and grow them in Belgium without
penalty – however, you are only allowed to own one female plant.
The purchase and sale of marijuana is still illegal, but most
Belgians simply get their marijuana in Holland.

Colombia

Colombia, has had relaxed laws concerning drug possession for
over ten years. Possession of less than 20 grams of marijuana,
one gram of cocaine and one gram of heroin is not considered to
be illegal, although things may change – recent conservative
governments have considered repealing this law to combat
Colombia's drug culture.

Nepal

Unlike the other countries on this list, Nepal doesn't have an
actual decriminalisation policy towards marijuana – it's rather
that the laws they have are hardly ever enforced! Marijuana used
to be legal in Nepal, making it a hippy Mecca in the 1960's and
early 70's. It has been illegal since 1973 – not that you'd
notice. Marijuana is widely available and used, especially by
Nepalese holy men. Note that smuggling and growing are punished,
but possession and personal use rarely are – if the police catch
you smoking they will stop you, but only to collect a small
bribe!


About The Author: Robert Kane is the web editor of Sensible
Seeds, (http://www.sensibleseeds.com) where you can buy
marijuana seeds and informational books online. The website
sells its products to customers all over the world.