快猫短视频

FRANKLIN ORR, dean of earth sciences at Stanford University, and Peter Brewer
of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, both in California,
impressively outlined some of the techniques that could be used to lock away
carbon dioxide emissions (Chemistry & Industry, 4 September 2000, p
567). I sent a copy of the article to Lord Whitty, who has ministerial
responsibilities in the House of Lords for matters relating to climate
change.

Whitty replied that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the
Regions broadly agrees with the Brewer-Orr view. In fact, its experts have
proposed underground storage and ocean-floor trapping (called 鈥渟equestration鈥�)
as ways of dealing with the growing volume of CO₂ from human sources.
The ocean-floor method, he said, is at an early stage and full-scale trials are
needed to check storage security and any adverse effects on marine life.

But the DETR believes that capture and deep storage underground has greater
potential than ocean-floor trapping. The technology is more advanced, said
Whitty, and is already used to enhance oil recovery from depleted oil
reservoirs. However, the full-scale trial under way in the Sleipner oil field in
the North Sea should produce some useful insights into the technical and
commercial feasibility of the ocean-floor method, he said.

Orr and Brewer say that ocean storage is highly speculative. The DETR agrees,
said Whitty. Some scientists have suggested that ocean fertilisation might be
another way of soaking up the CO₂, he said, but that would entail
environmental and economic uncertainties. It could even prove counterproductive.
Adding nutrients or iron to the oceans to fertilise them could lead to the
production of nitrous oxide or methane鈥攂oth potent greenhouse gases. That
would offset or reverse any benefit from the increased uptake of CO₂,
said Whitty.

Clearly, there is much research still to be done on these interesting
ideas.

SHOULD Britain鈥檚 customs service have more power to detain and seize suspect
agricultural products at airports and seaports? I was left wondering this after
reading about the rapid spread of the virulent new strain of foot and mouth disease
(快猫短视频, 3 March, p 4).
A spokesman for the service is
quoted as saying that it has no power to do this, and in the light of the
current horrendous foot and mouth situation that seems wrong. I decided to ask
the minister responsible for the customs service鈥攖he Paymaster General,
Dawn Primarolo.

Primarolo replied that customs does have a role in the control of imports of
agricultural products from developing countries. She stated that livestock and
commercial imports of animal products are only permitted to enter Britain
through approved Border Inspection Posts. BIPs are operated by, or on behalf of,
the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and undertake physical and
documentary checks. Customs helps by identifying controlled goods for the BIPs
and ensuring they are not released until health checks have been completed.

The customs service has a responsibility to check for imported meat or other
animal products brought into Britain in baggage or in the post, said Primarolo.
Where checks reveal animal products, or cooked meat in sealed containers over
the weight allowance, the product is seized and disposed of through MAFF or the
local authority.

Primarolo may consider that the current arrangements between customs and MAFF
provide the powers to enable illegal imports to be dealt with. However, I say
there are many important lessons to be learned from the current foot and mouth
disaster.