Don't Give Lottery Tix to Kids

I hadn't thought about it much before, but it makes a huge amount of sense: Don't give lottery tickets to children. The National Council on Problem Gambling in Washington has joined with the Canadian International Center for Youth Gambling Problems and High-Risk Behaviors -- and individual lotteries in both countries -- to warn parents during the holidays about the risks of giving lottery tickets as gifts to minors.

The collaborative campaign -- so far not including the New York Lottery (shame on us) -- also received unanimous support from the Responsible Gaming Sub-committee of the North American Association of State and Provincial Lotteries.

The campaign says:

Research shows that the majority of adolescents gamble at least occasionally, and that lottery products may be a gateway to problem gambling. Gambling also is linked to other risk-taking behaviors. Studies indicate gamblers and problem gamblers are prone to engage in other addictive behaviors such as smoking, drinking and drug use.
“We know that playing the lottery at a young age can increase the potential for problem gambling later in life,” said Dr. Jeffrey Derevensky, co-director of the centre and a renowned expert on problem gambling among young people.

For more information, go to www.ncpgambling.com www.youthgambling.com oir contact Keith S. Whyte of the National Council on Problem Gambling at keithw@ncpgambling.org.

Climate Change Experts Rethinking Renewable Energy??

We've lived through a lot of changes of mind by scientists on dietary issues. We've also found out that the potential for recycling is limited by the extent of the markets. Now in recent weeks questions have been raised about the adequacy of carbon-capping and trading programs in the face of the urgency of the need for reductions.

It is nonetheless unsettling to read a story by David Adam in the Guardian yesterday that climate change experts are "losing faith" in renewable technology.

These experts are meeting under UN auspices in Poznan, Poland to confer on what to do about global warming. The Guardian reports on a survey that portrays 1,000 specialists in climate change as less optimistic that wind, solar and hydro power have "high potential" to solve the climate crisis.

The problem is that both worldwide economic problems and the true scale of the carbon reductions required have grown, according to the Globescan survey, which compares opinions in 2008 with those a year earlier:

The survey shows less support for wind energy, solar power, biofuels, biomass and hydrogen energy as technologies with "high potential" to reduce carbon levels in the atmosphere over the next 25 years.

There was also less support for carbon capture and storage, new nuclear build, small-scale hydropower and natural gas stations as viable ways to hit targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The Globescan survey of "climate decision makers" was supported by such groups as the World Bank, the UN Environment Program and the Pew Centre for Global Climate Change. The respondents included leaders from governments, NGOs and companies in 115 countries over the last few weeks. They concluded:

Support for offshore wind farms, the bedrock for ambitious UK renewable energy plans, was down to 61%, from 65% last year. Solar electricity generation was rated as having high-potential by 66% of respondents, down from 74%. Support for hydrogen power was 32%, down from 36% in 2007.

The respondents also warned that a deep recession would make a new global deal on climate harder to achieve. Some 44% agreed that the current economic crisis will significantly delay or compromise the "achievement of effective climate change agreements".

The Poznan negotiations aim to set the stage for a new global treaty of climate change to succeed the Kyoto protocol to be agreed in Copenhagen at a meeting this time next year.

Meanwhile, are the survey results too small a change to be meaningful? Or do they portend a rethinking of how climate change should be addressed?