THEME-1 GLOBAL WARMING

OTBA Paper for Class- VIII (SOCIAL SCIENCE) M.M-10

Session 2014-2015 T.A.-30 min

Read the text and answer the question

The climate is changing. The earth is warming up, and there is now overwhelming scientific consensus that it is happening, and human-induced. With global warming on the increase and species and their habitats on the decrease, chances for ecosystems to adapt naturally are diminishing. Manyareagreed that climate change may be one of the greatest threats facing the planet. Recent years show increasing temperatures in various regions, and/or increasing extremities in weather patterns.

Climate Justice andEquity:-

For a number of years, there have been concerns that climate change negotiations will essentially ignore a key principle of climate change negotiation frameworks: the common but differentiated.

Responsibilities. Realizing that greenhouse emissions remain in the atmosphere for a very long time, this principle recognizes that historically:

Industrialized nations have emitted far more greenhouse gas emissions (even if some developing nations are only now increasing theirs);

Rich countries therefore face the biggest responsibility and burden for action to address climate change; and Rich countries therefore must support developing nations adaptthrough financing and technology transfer, for example.

This notion ofclimate justiceis typically ignored by many rich nations and their mainstream media, making it easy to blame China, India and other developing countries for failures in climate change mitigation negotiations.

Development expert, Martin Khor, calculated that taking historical emissions into account, the rich countries owe acarbon debtbecause they have already used more than their fair quota of emissions. Yet, by 2050 when certain emission reductions are needed by, their reduced emissions will still add up to be go over their fair share:

However, rather than continue down the path of unequal development, industrialized nations can help pay off theircarbon debtby truly helping emerging countries develop along a cleaner path, such as through the promised-but-barely-delivered technology transfer, finance, and capacity building.

So far however, rich nations have done very little within the Kyoto protocol to reduce emissions by any meaningful amount, while they are all for negotiating a follow on treaty that brings more pressure to developing countries to agree to emissions targets.

In effect, the more there will be delay the more the poor nations will have to save the Earth with their sacrifices (and if it works, as history shows, the rich and powerful will find a way to rewrite history to claim they were the ones that saved the planet).

How to Fight Global Warming

WASHINGTONEnvironmentalists and politicians can argue the costs and benefits of international action on global warming from now until doomsday, and they probably will. But nothing will get done without an institutional mechanism to develop, institute and enforce regulations across national boundaries.

The need for a mechanism emerged clearly from this week's meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group sponsored by the United Nations. President Bush's speech at the conference, in which he called for more research on the ''uncertainty'' of global, warming, may have disappointed some. But that misses the larger point.

Little can be accomplished in the absence of multilateral institutions that will eventually carry out whatever remedial environmental actions the world community can agree upon. In short, we need an international treaty, modeled perhaps on the Law of the Sea Treaty, to coordinate and enforce international action on the environment.

Of course, many scientific questions need to be answered. We need to know the costs and benefits of various means of stopping the buildup of greenhouse gases. We need to discuss regulatory standards and cost-effective enforcement measures. Eventually, however, we will have to act.

The world cannot afford to rely on independent action by individual countries. The results are bound to be highly uneven: One nation could cut back on its carbon dioxide emissions; one could stop the destruction of its own forests; still another could do nothing. The least responsible transnational corporations will seek out and encourage the most permissive regulatory environments.

For maximum impact as well as equitable burden-sharing, there will have to be universal standards universally accepted. Deliberation about the political palatability and enforcement of these standards should be concurrent with, not subsequent to, deliberation about science and regulation.

Take, for instance, the question of whether to strengthen organizations like the United Nations Environmental Program or the International Maritime Organization combine them or build a new one - a global Environmental Protection Agency -from scratch. Or take the question of what powers should be granted to the chosen institutions. Should these institutions be limited to formulating recommendations or should they also have the power to promulgate and enforce regulations?

Political considerations must also be discussed. Will there be a single governing body with universal representation? What kind of voting arrangement will govern its decisions - a one-nation, one-vote system like the United Nations General Assembly, a weighted system like the World Bank or Intelsat or something in between? Dispute-resolution mechanisms must be put in place.

Whether the international institution is given power to enforce rather than merely recommend regulations obviously affect representational and decision-making issues. In fact, the more power the organization will be expected to exercise and the more money it will be authorized to spend, the fiercer will be the battles.

The arena in which these battles are fought will be an international conference of some 160 sovereign states to be held in Brazil in 1992. These states will vastly differ in their contributions to environmental degradation. Their delegates will represent every race, culture, ideology, geographical circumstance and state of economic development on earth.

Given the scope and complexity of this conference's task, a thorough preparatory process is indispensable. The U.N. took four years to lay the groundwork for the Law of the Sea Conference, and the conference spent nine more years, with twice a year meetings, to produce a treaty.

The U.S. has not yet taken a prominent role in laying the groundwork for an environmental treaty. Our leadership in such effort nevertheless can make a critical difference. It is in our own interest and in that of the entire world community to take the initiative.

Our responsibility, our economic stake and our breadth of regulatory experience are unequalled. It is not too late.

Sample Questions:-

1. How does Global Warming has emerged as a disaster for the world; Give your opinion? 5

( ) ? /

2. How is Global Warming and Industrialization deeply associated? Give your suggestion to overcome it.5

( ) ? ?

Marking Scheme:-

1. Give any Four Reasons with relevant explanation 4+1 = 5

a) Development of Transportation

b) Industrialization

c) Deforestation

d) Urbanization

2. 5

- Industry release Co2 and other gases in the environment

-Smoke is emitted by chemical and paper factories

-Brick kilns, refineries and smelting plants and burning of fossils fuels in big and small factories that ignore pollution norms.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

THEME-2GENDER INEQUALITY IN INDIA

OTBA Paper for Class- VIII M.M-10

Session 2014-2015 T.A.-30 min

Read the text and answer the question

The Gender gap index for India compared to other countries. Gender gap index is one of many multi-dimensional measures of gender inequality. India was scored at 0.66 by World Economic Forum, and ranked 101 out of 136 countries in 2013.

Gender inequality in Indiarefers to health, education, economic and political inequalities between men and women inIndia.Various international gender inequality indices rank India differently on each of these factors, as well as on a composite basis, and these indices are controversial.

Gender inequalities, and its social causes, impact India's sex ratio, women's health over their lifetimes, their educational attainment, and economic conditions. Gender inequality in India is a multifaceted issue that concerns men and women alike. Some argue that some gender equality measures, place men at a disadvantage. However, when Indias population is examined as a whole, women are at a disadvantage in several important ways.

Gender statistics

The following table compares the population wide data for the two genders on various inequality statistical measures, according to The World Bank's Gender Statistics database for 2012.

Gender Statistic Measure[4]

Females(India)

Males(India)

Females(World)

Males(World)

Infant mortality rate, (per 1,000 live births)

44.3

43.5

32.6

37

Life expectancy at birth, (years)

68

64.5

72.9

68.7

Expected years of schooling

11.3

11.8

11.7

12.0

Primary school completion rate, (%)

96.6

96.3

Lower secondary school completion rate, (%)

76.0

77.9

70.2

70.5