as the season to summit the everest comes to an end, the sherpa mountaineers in nepal don’t seem very optimistic about future expeditions. they claim that the melting ice and snow have exposed bare rock faces on mount everest, making it dangerous to climb the mountain. they also fear if the ice continues to melt at the same rate it could affect future expeditions.

as reported by the bbc, temperatures are rising faster at mount everest than the rest of south asia. so, would climbing the everest become a thing of the past? may be, may be not, but this is yet another reminder for all of us about the phenomenal impact of global-warming. can we still rectify the damage that we have done to the environment through our actions or have we already lost the chance?

after all 5,000 barrels of oil are leaking into the water everyday and among other things, that has a huge impact on the aquatic ecosystem. the supply of seafood from the gulf is being curtailed as the national oceanic and atmospheric administration has blocked fishing in federal waters from louisiana to waters off pensacola bay. louisiana alone boasts a seafood industry worth $2.4 billion. that will definitely be affected. that’s not all, in the coming days, you and i might be paying a little more for our favorite seafood meal at a local restaurant.

the writing on the wall is very clear, offshore drilling has a big risk involved. but didn’t president obama recently make a case for offshore drilling? well, yes he did and for now that issue might be put on the back burner. but the moment is ripe for him to renew the stalled energy and climate bill. he could push for cleaner energy options that will reduce america’s dependence on oil and fossil fuels. so will he or won’t he?

what are the chances of a floor vote this spring or summer? even if the bill is brought to the floor, will senator reid be able to cobble up the required 60 votes for the bill to pass through the senate?

there is also some contention over the differences in provisions of the waxman-markey bill and the kerry-lieberman-graham bill. the major differences include the carbon pricing system, which the senate version of the bill spells out for various sectors of the economy as opposed to the house’s all-inclusive approach. the senate bill is also expected to emphasize on offshore oil and gas drilling and expansion of nuclear power. so, will the senate proposals prevail over those of the house?

obama minced no words in saying that his first priority is the wall street regulatory reform. does that the mean that the final negotiations over the bill might be put on hold till the midterm election in november? these are some questions that the publics might be curious to know. so, will there actually be a federal legislation to tackle climate change till earth day 2011?

according to a recent news report by the inter press service, almost three billion households across the world cook food on stoves using wood, dung, coal, straw, husks or charcoal. as a result, an estimated 1.6 million die annually including a million children under the age of five, mostly victims of childhood pneumonia.

india is a case in point, where eighty percent of the rural population burns biomass to cook. this leads to 400,000 people falling prey to indoor air pollution almost every year. the numbers mainly include women and children.

will just half a billion stoves solve the problem? how will these be distributed across the developing and the underdeveloped countries? how sustainable is this model? what exactly do they mean by “clean stoves”? will the model developed in the west be adaptable to the local practices of these nations. also, if these stoves are going to be mass-produced will the safety regulations be compromised upon? how many tons of green house gases will be reduced? how will that be monitored?

i seek answers to all these questions not as a skeptic, but as someone who wonders what the impetus behind the 1.6 billion mark is? as we try to tackle global climate-change, issues like poverty in the underdeveloped and the developing countries need to be carefully considered. if only some countries benefit from the policies and measures that are being drafted or implemented, development will be lop-sided and the overall purpose of a global climate coalition stands defeated.