Posts filed under 'News'
Japanese outbound travel continues to slow, including to Hawaii.
For the year to date through November, Japanese arrivals to Hawaii dropped 3.5 percent to 1.2 million total visitors.
Hawaii remains the fourth most popular draw for Japanese, after China and South Korea, which are primarily of business travel destinations, and France.
Also according to the Japan National Travel Association, travel to the U.S. Mainland has declined 6.2 percent through November, while travel to Canada is down 14.8 percent through October.
Australia, New Zealand, Guam and the Northern Marianas also are seeing fewer Japanese travelers.
However, Japanese travel to Bali, Indonesia, is up 40.7 percent, while trips to Macau have increased 34.4 percent.
Source: Pacific Business News
January 19th, 2008
Bali’s reviving tourism industry has experienced a rise in the number of visitors from South Korea, who have long been considered the “non-traditional” tourist market for Indonesia.
Based on a figure from Bali’s tourism agency, as reported by Antara on Monday, the number of South Korean tourists rose by 54.1 percent to 121,858 last year from 79,072 in 2006. The agency forecasts the rising trend to continue this year.
The figure ranked Korea fourth after Japan, Australia and Taiwan as the countries that contributed the most foreign visitors to Bali last year.
Source: The Jakarta Post
January 19th, 2008
The setting of a limit on how much global temperatures are allowed to increase is an inherently political process.
The UN-led climate change conference in Bali will be remembered less for the “road map” that it eventually created than for a messy collision between the US and much of the rest of the world that kept onlookers transfixed. Environmental campaigners vilified the US for resisting EU pressure to pre-commit to specific temperature targets — namely, that global warming should be limited to no more than 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures.
This target has become a veritable commandment of campaigners since the EU embraced it in 1996. The media often refer to it, sometimes saying that unless it is met, climate change would be very dangerous for humanity. In fact, the target is not scientifically backed, and the suggestion that we could achieve it is entirely implausible.
Stopping temperatures from rising by more than 2°C would require draconian, instant emission reductions — for the OECD the reductions would have to be between 40 percent and 50 percent below their expected path in just 12 years. Even if political consensus could be found, the cost would be phenomenal: one model estimates that the total global cost would be around US$84 trillion, while the economic benefits would amount to just a seventh of this amount.
The suspiciously round figure of 2?C provides one clue to the fact this target is not based in science. The first peer-reviewed study that analyzed it, published last year, scathingly described it as being supported by “thin arguments, based on inadequate methods, sloppy reasoning, and selective citation from a very narrow set of studies.”
COSTS AND BENEFITS
In any case, a temperature limit is obviously a political rather than a scientific statement. Setting a limit means weighing up the costs and benefits of a world with temperatures at one level, and comparing them with the costs and benefits if we were to turn down the thermostat. This is an inherently political process.
Deciding how much we should let temperatures rise is like working out how many people should die in traffic accidents by adjusting the speed limit. There is no scientifically “correct” number of traffic deaths. Ideally, the number should be zero. But that would require lowering the limit to walking speed — at an immense cost to society.
It has been widely reported that the UN’s climate change panel (the IPCC) tells us that science shows that industrial countries’ emissions should be reduced by 25 percent to 40 percent by 2020. This is simply incorrect: the IPCC’s Nobel Peace Prize-winning scientists are “policy neutral.”
Yet many journalists reported from Bali that the US had rejected the science of the 25 percent to 40 percent emission reduction. They lamented how the science in the final document had been relegated to a footnote, stressing how shortsighted, national self-interest had won out. But this interpretation is flatly wrong. If we look at the reference in the Bali footnote, the IPCC clearly says that emissions should be reduced 25 percent to 40 percent if you choose the low EU target but 0 percent to 25 percent or less if you choose a higher target. Nevertheless, like many newspapers, the International Herald Tribune wrote that the IPCC assessment said “that the temperature rise had to be limited to 2°C.”
Our one-sided focus on rapid reductions in CO2 emissions is both unnecessarily expensive and unlikely to succeed. At the Rio summit in 1992, we promised to cut emissions by 2000, yet overshot the target by 12 percent. In Kyoto in 1997, we promised even more radical emission cuts by 2010, which we will miss by 25 percent. Making ever-stronger promises on top of ever more failed promises is hardly the right way forward.
SMARTER OPTIONS
Instead, we should look for smarter policy options, like aiming to ensure that alternative energy technologies at reasonable prices will be available within the next 20 to 40 years. This could be achieved if all countries committed to spending 0.05 percent of GDP on research and development of non-carbon-emitting energy technologies. The cost — a relatively minor US$25 billion per year — would be almost 10 times cheaper than the Kyoto Protocol (and many more times cheaper than a standard Kyoto II). Yet it would increase R&D globally 10-fold.
Moreover, while it would embrace all countries, the rich would pay the larger share. It would let each country focus on its own vision of future energy needs, whether that means concentrating on renewable sources, nuclear energy, fusion, carbon storage, conservation, or searching for new and more exotic opportunities. It would also avoid ever-stronger incentives for free riding and ever-harder negotiations over ever more restrictive Kyoto-style treaties.
A sensible policy dialogue requires us to talk openly about our priorities. Often, there is a strong sentiment that we should do anything required to ameliorate a situation. But we don’t actually do that. In democracies, we debate how much to spend on different initiatives, knowing that we don’t have infinite resources, and that sometimes throwing more money at the problem isn’t the best answer.
When we talk about the environment, we know tougher restrictions will mean better protection, but with higher costs. Deciding what level of temperature change we should aim for — and how to achieve it — is a discussion that should engage all of us. But confusing political campaigning with scientific reason won’t help.
By Bjorn Lomborg.
Source: Taipei Times
January 19th, 2008
A UN climate change report suggesting the world is on the brink of an environmental catastrophe has reignited the political debate over global warming.
The latest report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says millions of people could be affected by rising temperatures and forecasts more heat waves, melting glaciers and rising sea levels if action is not taken.
Labor leader Kevin Rudd says the scientists are sounding a warning bell.
“This is a call to arms for the nation, a call to arms for the world to act now on climate change before it’s too late,” he said.
Mr Rudd restated his plan to immediately ratify the Kyoto protocol if Labor is elected.
But the Prime Minister says that is looking to the past.
“It’s the new Kyoto, the new international arrangement that matters and the Labor Party has adopted our plan,” Mr Howard said.
He says it is a serious challenge that needs a balanced approach.
Federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull also criticised Labor’s promise to ratify Kyoto, instead of looking forward to a new agreement.
The new agreement is expected to be negotiated at next month’s UN climate change conference in Bali.
“There will be a new climate change treaty,” he said.
“Kyoto mark 1, if you like, is coming to an end, because the first commitment period, will be over in a few years.
“The focus really needs to be on the new deal, the next agreement.”
Source: ABC News
November 20th, 2007
Raffles Hotels & Resorts continues its pace of expansion with a new luxury resort in Bali, Indonesia. In an agreement signed with PT Asia Pasifik Property, a subsidiary of the Rekso Group, Raffles Hotels & Resorts will manage Raffles Amartha, which will be located along the scenic Jimbaran coast. Raffles Amartha is scheduled to open in 2010 and features a resort comprising approximately 90 luxurious villas, and 25 Raffles Residences for private ownership. Occupying a sprawling 27 acres, Raffles Amartha is built to resemble a Water Palace, with inspiration drawn from classical Javanese-Hindu architecture and style, characterized by open spaces, water features and walled courtyards on rising terraces.
The centerpiece of the Water Palace is the resort’s lobby. Sitting high on a terrace, it overlooks the resort’s water gardens, pavilions and villas, offering guests commanding views of the ocean as they gaze across the landscaped grounds.
Raffles Amartha is bordered by a cliff above the beach (commonly referred to as ‘dreamland beach’), and an 18-hole golf course. Each villa at Raffles Amartha features a private plunge pool and sun deck, and most are located on terraces, ensuring panoramic views of the ocean or golf course, as well as the private and intimate feel that Raffles is renowned for. Guests in search of supreme exclusivity can look forward to the Presidential Villa or the spacious 5-bedroom Raffles Residence along the cliff.
When visiting Raffles Amartha, one can lounge by the infinity swimming pool perched at the cliff top, or indulge in the sumptuous range of culinary creations at the all-day dining restaurant or the resort’s specialty restaurant. The lobby court will serve freshly brewed coffee and tea and a wide range of cocktails, while the Cave Bar by the beach is ideal for drinks, finger-food and barbeques.
With an expansive 22,000 square foot RafflesAmrita Spa at the resort, guests will also be pampered by skilled therapists as they experience the spa’s extensive massage and wellness options. RafflesAmrita Spa is a signature component of Raffles hotels and resorts found around the world. According to an ancient Sanskrit legend, ‘Amrita’ was the magical elixir of youth sought by deities. RafflesAmrita Spa at Raffles Hotel and Raffles The Plaza in Singapore, as well as Raffles Resort Canouan Island in The Grenadines, have all been acknowledged as best spa in their respective destinations.
Raffles Amartha will also feature a cliff-top wedding pavilion, and couples can plan an unforgettable wedding or even renew their vows in this romantic setting, accompanied by sweeping ocean views and an amazing sunset.
The resort is located only 15 minutes away from Bali’s international airport, Denpasar.
About Raffles Hotels & Resorts
Raffles is a collection of luxury hotels and resorts worldwide, each distinguished by its luxury, elegance and residential charm. Each hotel is a landmark in its respective city, positioned at the top of its local market and rated among the very best in the world. www.raffles.com
About Fairmont Raffles Hotels International, Inc.
Raffles Hotels & Resorts is owned by Fairmont Raffles Hotels International, a leading global hotel company with over 120 hotels in 25 countries worldwide under the Raffles, Fairmont, Swissôtel and Delta brands. The company also owns Fairmont Heritage Place and Fairmont Residences, offering luxury vacation ownership and residential properties.
Source: Hotel Online
September 14th, 2007
Next Posts
Previous Posts