With rapidly increasing industrialisation, pollution and green house gases, how we shall protect the mother earth from ultra violet radiations coming from the sun? Is there some way to produce Ozone artificially to save the earth?

Increasing industrial zones globally producing harmful green house gases in to atmosphere. Due to certain gases such as CFC, even perfume spay gases etc. ozone is getting destroyed. At some places such as Siberia (north pole), near south pole and certain other places ozone holes already created due to industrial pollution and deforestation, as a result UV radiations directly attacking earth. Direct penetration of UV radiation may create health hazards such as skin cancer etc. Ozone layer in the atmosphere is a protective shield of our mother earth. If it is lost we may have to loose earth in future. Hence I think time has come to think very seriously how to protect mother earth from UV radiations and to produce ozone artificially.

How should we define metrics such as GWP (Global Warming Potential)?

It is important to define appropriately metrics such as GWP, which enables direct comparisons among various green house gasses (GHGs), in order to establish plans for constraining GHG emissions including those for non-CO2 GHGs.

Doing so requires comprehensive understanding of interactions among biosphere, biogeochemistry, atmosphere and oceans. A difficulty lies in the fact that improvements of metrics definition should be conducted in concert with clear definition of relevant policies.

What share of the growth in global greenhouse gas emissions is due to consumption in rich nations compared to poor nations?

Since 1990 emissions in Annex B countries (those with emission constraints) have largely stabilized, while emissions in non-Annex B countries (developing countries) have increased substantially (e.g., Figure 2, http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/background.php). Several recent studies indicate that it is likely that a significant share of the growth in non-Annex B emissions is due to consumption in Annex B countries (e.g., US, http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es0629110; UK, http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=EV02033_7331_FRP.pdf; China, http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GL036540.shtml). This is due to a shift of Annex B countries towards services with a corresponding increase in imports. Despite the availability of data and methods no one has undertaken a comprehensive study of how consumption (as opposed to production) acts as a driver for greenhouse gas emission increases over time. A key question for climate negotiations is how much of the emissions growth in non-Annex B countries is due to consumption in Annex B countries. There is a need for both retrospective studies looking into historical developments as well as studies looking at how this may change as Annex B countries begin more aggressive mitigation after 2012.

What will the world – its climate, its ecosystems, and its human societies look like with 1000 ppm of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

It is unlikely, for political and economic reasons, that greenhouse gas emissions will be curbed in any significant way. As a consequence, emissions will rise to at least 1000 parts per million in the atmosphere. Society must know what that new world is, so that we can adapt.

What is the optimum level of atmospheric carbon dioxide for maximum forest, crop and pasture growth, without compromising human health?

Evidence suggests that historical atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were markedly higher than at present, and that these higher levels were associated with very high plant productivity – such as during the carboniferous age. Even today, greenhouse producers pump carbon dioxide into their production units to facilitate plant growth, suggesting our current atmosphere is carbon dioxide poor. A sensible approach to atmospheric carbon dioxide management requires a clear understanding of the optimum levels necessary for plant productivity witout compromising human health.

How soon can each of the country board on a low GHG pathway?

Development today is following the footsteps of the predecessors. Can we define an alternative development pathway in a carbon constrained world? Who would /should lead the way? Developed or developing countries? How can this be consistent with sustenance of human well being? A shelf full of technologies are known that can move the world on low carbon pathway but important question is what institutional structure, local capacity, education, international cooperation mechanism, financial assistance, political will for prioritizing the issues are defining realities with as many varieties as there are countries, states etc. so to be realistic enough about stabilization and peaking major question is can we map each country’s reality and get an envelope to decide on adaptation plan and protocol. This exercise will infact show who can commit how much in terms of global good delivery unilaterally , bilaterally, multtilaterally. Ideally it will be realistic to imagine that no single world order for cooperation will prevail.

Had all technologically feasible measures been employed in the U.S. beginning in 1960 to control criteria pollution to a level that meets U.S. federal ambient air quality standards established under the first and subsequent federal clean air act, what would our GHG contribution be in 2009?

Answering this question would help determine whether we should be spending more or less time and resources reducing criteria pollutants to help address climate change. It would help determine whether the broader consequence of NOT aggressively reducing criteria pollutants over the last several decades in response to powerful political forces (e.g. auto industry, oil industry, etc.) even though technology has existed, is that we are now facing a much more serious climate change situation.

An answer might help guide how policy makers should be investing time and resources. As it is, the drive to address CO2 has distracted policy makers and regulators in recent years from driving harder to reduce criteria pollutants.