(목요모임) [05 Decemberr 2019]Thursday meeting topic

[주영이]

Topic 1) What to Know About the Historic ‘Paris Agreement’ on Climate Change

http://time.com/4146764/paris-agreement-climate-cop-21/

 Negotiators from nearly 200 countries gathered in Paris Saturday reached the world’s most significant agreement to address climate change since the issue first emerged as a major political priority decades ago.

Here are answers to five key questions about the agreement:

What does the Paris Agreement do?

 The Paris Agreement is meant to signal the beginning of the end of more than 100 years of fossil fuels serving as the primary engine of economic growth and shows that governments from around the world take climate change seriously. The inclusion of both developed and developing countries, including those that rely on revenue from oil and gas production, demonstrates a unity never seen before on this issue.

 The deal requires any country that ratifies it to act to stem its greenhouse gas emissions in the coming century, with the goal of peaking greenhouse gas emissions “as soon as possible” and continuing the reductions as the century progresses. Countries will aim to keep global temperatures from rising more than 2°C (3.6°F) by 2100 with an ideal target of keeping temperature rise below 1.5°C (2.7°F).

 The deal will also encourage trillions of dollars of capital to be spent adapting to the effects of climate change—including infrastructure like sea walls and programs to deal with poor soil—and developing renewable energy sources like solar and wind power. The text of the agreement includes a provision requiring developed countries to send $100 billion annually to their developing counterparts beginning in 2020. That figure will be a “floor” that is expected to increase with time.

 The agreement gives countries considerable leeway in determining how to cut their emissions but mandates that they report transparently on those efforts. Every five years nations will be required to assess their progress towards meeting their climate commitments and submit new plans to strengthen them.

 Is the agreement binding?

 The legal nature of the deal–whether it will be binding–had been a hotly debated topic in the lead up to the negotiations. The agreement walks a fine line, binding in some elements like reporting requirements, while leaving other aspects of the deal—such as the setting of emissions targets for any individual country—as non-binding.

 How did the negotiations work?

 The Paris Agreement marks the culmination of years groundwork laid in the aftermath of a failed attempt at achieving a previous global agreement at a 2009 climate conference in Copenhagen. Countries settled on a bottom-up approach allowing each nation to submit its own plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions rather than trying to agree on a one-size-fits-all strategy, greatly simplifying the job of negotiations.

 After several less-publicized meetings, negotiators from the nearly 200 countries gathered on November 30 at a conference center in Le Bourget airport just outside Paris. A week and a half of talks yielded a draft agreement, after which the most intense portion of the negotiations began on Thursday. Delegates met in closed-door meetings through the night and presidents called their counterparts in other countries. The French leaders running the conference followed along, revising the text of the draft agreement as necessary. The final agreement ultimately required compromises from every party.

 Who were the key players in getting a deal?

 France, the host country, has received near-universal praise for its handling of the conference. The leaders of host countries in climate negotiations write the actual text of agreement by listening to the concerns of all the countries present. By all accounts, France deftly accounted for all those concerns allowing for passage of the deal without objection.

Leadership from the U.S., China and India also played a key role in facilitating the agreement. All three countries have acted as road blocks in past attempts to achieve climate deals, but in the lead up to this conference each made strong commitments to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions and to contribute to a positive discussion in Paris.

Vulnerable small island countries, particularly the Marshall Islands, also emerged as the surprise power players of the conference. Representatives from countries in this group pushed hard for negotiators to set a more ambitious climate target and largely succeeded. A “high-ambition coalition” led by the Marshall Islands gained support from more than 100 countries, including the U.S., Brazil and members of the European Union, and their efforts resulted in the inclusion of long-term targets and a lower “ideal” warming target.

 So everyone’s happy?

 Representatives from the vast majority of countries party to the agreement walked away satisfied with the new climate deal. In a comment period following the adoption, delegate after delegate praised the text as a generally fair-and-balanced representation of what all countries wanted—despite significant compromises on issues like how to handle losses and damages related to climate change.

 The agreement also lived up to the demands of many environmental activists, who were most please that the deal included a long-term emissions reduction goal, the five-year review cycle and strong measures to ensure transparency. John Coequyt, the Sierra Club’s director of federal and international climate campaigns, said the agreement included “all the core elements that the environmental community wanted.”

 Others criticized the deal as too weak and for not providing enough based deal” because it fails to adequately address losses due to climate change in the most vulnerable countries. Some conservatives in the United States who disagree with the science behind climate change also criticized the deal. (The agreement was carefully crafted to avoid needing approval from U.S. Congress).

Questions:

1. How serious do you think is the air pollution in Korea?

2. This year the Korea Meteorological Administration issued a fine dust alert in some cities. How much are you concerned about particle pollution? And why?

3. Some people promote nuclear energy as an environmentally friendly energy source. What are the pros and cons of nuclear energy? And are you for or against setting up more nuclear power plants?

4. Do you think it would be effective for countries to get together and reach an agreement in combating climate change? What efforts should each country make to fight global warming?

Topic by 시에나

Topic2)

Processed And Red Meat Could Cause Cancer? 

Your Questions Answered

The World Health Organization made an announcement Monday that's likely to come as a blow to anyone whose favorite outdoor snack is a hot dog. 

Processed meats — yes, hot dogs, plus sausage, ham, even turkey bacon — are cancer-causing, a committee of scientists with WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded. And it classified red meat as "probably carcinogenic to humans."

THE SALT

Bad Day For Bacon: Processed Meats Cause Cancer, WHO Says

The IARC posted a Q&A on its site, but it didn't cover all of the questions we've been hearing from you on social media. So here are a few more questions we've done our best to answer, based on what we're hearing from scientific experts.

What kind of meat are we talking about here?

The IARC defines processed meat as any meat that's been "transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking or other processes to enhance flavor or improve preservation." So that means not just beef or pork but also processed poultry or liver.

Red meat is beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton and goat (and horse, if you happen to fancy it).

What about chicken or turkey sausage?

WHO's classification of all processed meat as carcinogenic means turkey and chicken sausage and bacon are included, too.

What kind of cancer?

The evidence was strongest linking red and processed meat consumption with colorectal cancer. The scientists also looked at data on more than 15 other types of cancer and saw positive associations "between consumption of red meat and cancers of the pancreas and the prostate (mainly advanced prostate cancer), and between consumption of processed meat and cancer of the stomach."

How did the IARC reach these conclusions?

By reviewing 800 studies that looked at the association of cancer with consumption of red or processed meat in people around the world, of diverse ethnicities and diets.

What exactly is it in red and processed meat that makes it carcinogenic?

Studies show that meat processing techniques and cooking it at high temperatures can lead to the formation of carcinogenic chemicals.Other studies show those compounds appearing in parts of the digestive tract like the colon.

As we've reported, one theory is that the iron in meat works as a catalyst to turn nitrates added as preservatives into a particular kind of carcinogen in the body. And there are other proposed mechanisms, too.

Are certain types of meat processing less dangerous than others?

Maybe. We can't really parse that out with the research done so far, says Dr. Steven Clinton, professor of medical oncology at Ohio State University.

So does this mean I should give up eating red and processed meat?

If you're eating a diet that is very rich in meat products and processed meats, it may be time to cut back, says Clinton, who's also a member of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, which advises the federal government on nutrition policy. This year, the panelrecommended that Americans cut back on red and processed meat. (Not surprisingly, the meat industry vehemently opposed the recommendation.)

That doesn't mean bacon is permanently off limits — as Clinton told us, he ate some over the weekend.

Well, then, how much is safe to eat?

The IARC stopped short of saying what constitutes a safe amount to eat. According to Dariush Mozaffarian, dean of the School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, there's not enough evidence to give meat eaters a specific amount that is OK to consume.

With that caveat, Mozaffarian says his own general recommendations are "no more than one to two servings per month of processed meats, and no more than one to two servings per week of unprocessed meat."

The American Cancer Society doesn't provide specific targets. Instead, it advises that Americans minimize processed meats like bacon and sausage in their diets, and choose fish, poultry and beans as an alternative to red meat. And when you do eat red meat, the ACS says select leaner cuts and smaller portions.

As Clinton tells NPR's Robert Siegel on All Things Considered,ultimately, how much is OK to eat depends on a person's individual risk factors.

But isn't eating processed meat just as bad as smoking?

No. While WHO has now put processed meat in the same category of cancer risk as smoking, that doesn't mean it's equally dangerous. As a single factor, smoking contributes enormously to the risk of lung and other types of cancer, Clinton says. By contrast, processed meat "contributes a much more modest risk," he says.

Specifically, for every 1.8 ounces of processed meat eaten daily, the risk of colorectal cancer goes up about 18 percent over what it would have been if you didn't eat processed meat, according to the IARC. Those are relative risks — and the risk of developing colorectal cancer is fairly low to begin with. The quantitative risk, Clinton says, "is not even in the same ballpark as cigarette smoking."

Q: Is this really all that new?

A: No. The findings have been out there for several years. What is new is that WHO, which many countries look to for health advice, is using its megaphone to get people to pay attention.

reference: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/10/26/451950828/processed-and-red-meat-could-cause-cancer-your-questions-answered

Q. 

1.how often do you have processed and red meat?

2.How do you feel about this news? Will you stop eating processed and red meat?

3.Do you care the nutrition when you have meal?

4.What is your favorite food? 

5.Are there any foods that you wouldn't eat as a child that you eat now?

6.Do you think a vegetarian diet is better than a diet that includes meat?

7.How often do you eat in a restaurant? (How often do you eat out?)

What do you eat when you feel sad?

[Taylor]

the tomorrow topic isnt posted yet right? haha