READING COMPREHENSION (GENERAL ENGLISH)

A new analysis has determined that the threat of global warming can still be greatly diminished if nations cut emissions of heattrapping green-house gases by 70% this century. The analysis was done by scientists at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). While global temperatures would rise, the most dangerous potential aspects of climate change, including massive losses of Arctic sea ice and permafrost and significant sea-level rise could be partially avoided.
“This research indicates that we can no longer avoid significant warming during this century,” said NCAR scientist Warren Washington, the study paper’s lead author. “But, if the world were to implement this level of emission cuts, we could stabilise the threat of climate change”, he added. Average global temperatures have warmed by close to 1°C since the pre-industrial era.
Much of the warming is due to human-produced emissions of greenhouse gases, predominantly carbon dioxide. This heat-trapping gas has increased from a pre-industrial level of about 284 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere to more than 380 ppm today. With research showing that additional warming of about 1°C may be the threshold for dangerous climate change, the European Union has called for dramatic cuts in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
To examine the impact of such cuts on the world’s climate, Washington and his colleagues ran a series of global studies with the NCAR-based Community Climate System Model (CCSM). They assumed that carbon dioxide levels could be held to 450 ppm, at the end of this century. In contrast, emissions are now on track to reach about 750 ppm by 2100 if unchecked.
The team’s results showed that if carbon dioxide were held to 450 ppm. global temperatures would increase by 0.6°C above current readings by the end of the century. In contrast, the study showed that temperatures would rise by almost four times that amount, to 2.2°C above current readings, if emissions were allowed to continue on their present course.
Holding carbon dioxide levels to 450 ppm would have other impacts, according to the climate modeling study. Sea-level rise due to thermal expansion as water temperatures warmed would be 14 cm (about 5.5 inches) instead of 22 cm (8.7 inches).
Also, Arctic ice in the summertime would shrink by about a quarter in volume and stabilise by 2100, as opposed to shrinking at least three-quarters and continuing to melt, and Arctic warming would be reduced by almost half.
What would be the impact of unchecked green-house gas and carbon dioxide emissions?

1. Global temperatures would increase by 0.6 degrees Celcius.
2. Arctic warming would be reduced by half.
3. Thermal expansion will stop completely.

It is often forgotten that globalization is not only about policies on international economic relationships and transactions, but has ally to do with domestic policies of a nation.
Policy changes necessitated by meeting the internationally set conditions (by WTO etc.) of free trade and investment flows obviously affect domestic producers and investors. But the basic philosophy underlying globalization emphasizes absolute freedom to markets to determine prices and production and distribution patterns, and view government interventions as processes that create distortions and bring in inefficiency.
Thus, public enterprises have to be privatized through disinvestments and sales; sectors and activities hitherto reserved for the public sector have to be opened to the private sector. This logic extends to the social services like education and health. Any restrictions on the adjustments in workforce by way of retrenchment of workers should also be removed and exit should be made
According to the passage, under the globalization, government interventions are viewed as processes leading to

1. Privatization of public enterprises
2. Expansionary policy of public expenditure
3. Free play of market forces to determine wages and employment
4. Privatization of social services like education and health
Select the correct answer using the code given below :

Political ploys initially hailed as master-strokes often end up as flops. The Rs. 60,000 crore farm loan waiver announced in the budget writes off 100% of overdues of small and Marginal farmers holding upto two hectares, and 25% of overdues of larger farmers.
While India has enjoyed 8%-9% GDP growth for the past few years, the boom has bypassed many rural areas and farmer distress and suicides have made newspaper headlines. Various attempts to provide relief (employment guarantee scheme, public distribution system) have made little
impact, thanks to huge leakages from the government's lousy delivery systems. So, many economists think the loan waiver is a worthwhile alternative to provide relief. However, the poorest rural folk are landless labourers who get neither farm loans nor waivers.
Half of the small and marginal farmers get no loans from banks, and depend entirely on moneylenders, and will not benefit. Besides, rural India is full of the family holdings rather than individual holdings and family holdings will typically be much larger than two hectares even for dirt-poor farmers, who will, therefore, be denied the 100% waiver.
It will thus fail in both economic and political objectives. IRDP loans to the rural poor in the 1880s demonstrated that crooked bank officials demand bribes amounting to one third the intended benefits . Very few of the intended beneficiaries who merited relief received it. After the last farm loan waiver will similarly slow down fresh loans to deserving farmers.
While overdues to co-operatives may be higher, economist Surjit Bhalla says less than 5% of farmer loans to banks are overdue i.e. overdues exist for only 2.25 million out of 90 million farmers. If so, then the 95% who have repaid loans will not benefit. They will be angry at being penalised for honesty.
The budget thus grossly overestimates the number of beneficiaries. It also underestimates the negative effects of the waiver encouraging willful default in the future and discouraging fresh bank lending for some years. Instead of trying to reach the needy, through a plethora of leaky schemes we should transfer cash directly to the needy using new technology like biometric smart cards, which are now being used in many countries, and mobile phones bank accounts.
Then benefits can go directly to phone accounts operable only by those with biometric cards, ending the massive leakages of current schemes. The political benefits of the loan waiver have also been exaggerated since if only a small fraction of farm families benefit, and many of these have to pay bribes to get the actual benefit, will the waiver really be a massive vote-winner?
Members of joint families wall feel aggrieved that, despite having less than one hectare per head, their family holding is too large to qualify for the 100% waiver. All finance ministers, of central or state governments, give away freebies in their last budgets, hoping to win electoral regards. Yet, four-fifth of all incumbent governments are voted out.
This shows that beneficiaries of favours are not notably grateful, while those not so favoured may feel aggrieved, and vote for the opposition. That seems to be why election budgets constantly fail to win elections in India and the loan waiver will not change that pattern.
Why do economists feel that loan waivers will benefit farmers in distress?