Opinion
The Right to Life – Right to Breathe Clean Air: Burning Coal and Photosynthesis – a reply

I wish GADS would have stuck with his hesitation, without displaying his ignorance of basic chemistry and the global gas cycles in defence of his precious fossil fuels. Let me elucidate:
Carbon (C), the fourth most abundant element in the Universe, after hydrogen (H), helium (He), and oxygen (O), is the building block of life. It’s the basic element that anchors all organic substances, from fossil fuels to DNA. On Earth, carbon cycles through the land, ocean, atmosphere, and the Earth’s interior in a major biogeochemical cycle (the circulation of chemical components through the biosphere from or to the lithosphere, atmosphere, and hydrosphere).
The global carbon cycle can be divided into two categories: the geological/ancient, which operates over large time scales (millions of years), and the biological/modern, which operates at shorter time scales (days to thousands of years).
The Global Carbon Stock
The Global Carbon Stock began billions of years ago, as planetesimals (small bodies that formed from the solar nebula) and carbon-containing meteorites bombarded our planet’s surface, steadily increasing the planet’s Carbon content. Today such increments to the planet’s Carbon stock have ceased, but the stock has become more compartmentalised.
Since those times, carbonic acid (a weak acid derived from the reaction between atmospheric carbon dioxide [CO2] and water) has slowly but continuously combined with calcium and magnesium in the Earth’s crust, to form insoluble carbonates (carbon-containing chemical compounds) through a process called weathering. Then, through the process of erosion, the carbonates are washed into the ocean and eventually settle to the bottom. The cycle continues as these materials are drawn into Earth’s mantle by subduction (a process in which one lithospheric plate descends beneath another, often as a result of folding or faulting of the mantle) at the edges of continental plates. The carbon is then returned to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide during volcanic eruptions.
The balance between weathering, subduction, and volcanism controls atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over time periods of hundreds of millions of years. The oldest geologic sediments suggest that, before life evolved, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide may have been one-hundred times that of the present, providing a very different atmosphere and substantial greenhouse effect.
Fossil Carbon
The operation of life has been clearly demonstrated to change the chemistry of that atmosphere to what it is today. One of the most active agents of this change were oceanic plankton, photosynthetic microscopic phytoplankton that produce prodigious quantities of oxygen and biomass over time. Oxygen is released to the atmosphere and the biomass is consumed by respiring zooplankton (microscopic marine animals) within a matter of days or weeks. Only small amounts of residual carbon from these plankton settle out to the ocean bottom at any given time, but over long periods of time this process represents a significant removal of Carbon from the atmosphere. This slow removal of Carbon from the primary atmosphere into the fossil reservoir, while at the same time creating an atmospheric reservoir of oxygen, had a major effect on the maintenance of biotic homeostasis.
A similar process was repeated on the land, especially at Devonian times with the huge vegetation mass that covered the earth absorbing Carbon Dioxide, and then being mineralised in the lithosphere into coal, effectively removing that volume of carbon from earth’s atmosphere. The Oxygen released by these early prodigious forests contributed greatly to the current chemistry of the atmosphere.
Through this process, still active today, Carbon that enters the Lithosphere is removed completely from the biological cycle and becomes mineralised into cycles with ages of 100’s of millions of years.
The modern carbon cycle
On land, the major exchange of carbon with the atmosphere results from photosynthesis and respiration. During the daytime in the growing season, leaves absorb sunlight and take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In the oceans, the planktonic cycle operates a similar photosynthetic cycle. Both create biomass. In parallel, plants, animals and substrate microbes consume this carbon as organic matter and return carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. When conditions are too cold or too dry, photosynthesis and respiration cease along with the movement of carbon between the atmosphere and the land surface. The amounts of carbon that move from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, respiration, and back to the atmosphere are large, and produce oscillations in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Over the course of a year, these biological fluxes of carbon are over ten times greater than the amount of carbon introduced to the atmosphere by fossil fuel burning. However, the fluxing carbon was a part of the biosphere and the Carbon that flowed in the biosphere had a very significant chemical signature of carbon isotopes, the ratio of 13C to 12C. This fluxing of biotic carbon happens in cycles of a few days to thousands of years, but maintains the same isotope ratio. It also maintains a quantity of the rare unstable isotope 14C. All carbon that lacks 14C or has a lower 13C/12C ratio does not belong in the modern or biotic cycle.
Today, sequestration seems to have taken the meaning of the ‘act of sequestration’ more than the ‘product of sequestration’. Most models on carbon sequestration examine growing plantations as opposed to maintaining established forest stocks. The equation is simple and straightforward; the carbon that is tied up in the biological cycles of the planet has value as sequestered carbon. The time horizon that the carbon can be sequestered for, contributes to the value of this stock. So that while the carbon fixed by a Wheatfield has a value because it sequesters carbon, this value is low because it can only sequester it for a time horizon under one year. By contrast a forest or peat bog represents a carbon stock that has time horizons of hundreds or thousands of years and has much higher sequestering values. However, there is no biological process that can sequester carbon for periods exceeding 100 million years, except through fossilisation.
So. the bottom line is this: “Whatever is said, there is no scientifically valid technology by which fossil carbon can be locked up for millions of years using biological processes. The use of carbon dioxide in photosynthesis to justify burning coal is a cheat, as pointed out above.
Please stop defending fossil fuels,they are biospheric toxins and will poison the planet ruin our children’s future!
RANIL SENANAYAKE
Opinion
HW Cave saw Nanu Oya – Nuwara rail track as “exquisite”

Plans to resurrect the Nanu Oya – Nuwara Eliya rail track are welcome. The magnificent views from the train have been described by H W Cave in his book The Ceylon Government Railway (1910):
‘The pass by which Nuwara Eliya is reached is one of the most exquisite things in Ceylon. In traversing its length, the line makes a further ascent of one thousand feet in six miles. The curves and windings necessary to accomplish this are the most intricate on the whole railway and frequently have a radius of only eighty feet. On the right side of the deep mountain gorge we ascend amongst the tea bushes of the Edinburgh estate, and at length emerge upon a road, which the line shares with the cart traffic for about a mile. In the depths of the defile flows the Nanuoya river, foaming amongst huge boulders of rock that have descended from the sides of the mountains, and bordered by tree ferns, innumerable and brilliant trees of the primeval forest which clothe the face of the heights. In this land of no seasons their stages of growth are denoted by the varying tints of scarlet, gold, crimson, sallow green, and most strikingly of all, a rich claret colour, the chief glory of the Keena tree’.
However, as in colonial times, the railway should be available for both tourists and locals so that splendid vista can be enjoyed by all.
Dr R P Fernando
Epsom,
UK
Opinion
LG polls, what a waste of money!

If the people of this country were asked whether they want elections to the local government, majority of them would say no! How many years have elapsed since the local councils became defunct? And did not the country function without these councils that were labelled as ‘white elephants’?
If the present government’s wish is to do the will of the people, they should reconsider having local government elections. This way the government will not only save a considerable amount of money on holding elections, but also save even a greater amount by not having to maintain these local councils, which have become a bane on the country’s economy.
One would hope that the country will be able to get rid of these local councils and revert back to the days of having competent Government Agents and a team of dedicated government officials been tasked with the responsibility of attending to the needs of the people in those areas.
M. Joseph A. Nihal Perera
Opinion
What not to do

By Dr Upul Wijayawardhana
It is immaterial whether you like him or not but one thing is crystal clear; Donald Trump has shown, very clearly, who is the boss. Surely, presidents of two countries are equal; perhaps, that is the impression Volodymyr Zelensky had when he went to the White House to meet Trump but the hard reality, otherwise, would have dawned on him with his inglorious exit! True, the behaviour of President Trump and VP Vance were hardly praiseworthy but Zelensky did what exactly he should not do. Afterall, he was on a begging mission and beggars cannot be choosers! He behaved like professional beggars in Colombo who throw money back when you give a small amount!!
Despite the risk of belonging to the minority, perhaps of non-Americans, I must say that I quite like Trump and admire him as a straight-talking politician. He keeps to his words; however atrocious they sound! Unfortunately, most critics overlook the fact that what Trump is doing is exactly what he pledged during his election campaign and that the American voters elected him decisively. When he lost to Biden, all political commentators wrote him off, more so because of his refusal to admit defeat and non-condemnation of his supporters who rioted. When he announced his intention to contest, it only evoked pundits’ laughter as they concluded that the Republican Party would never nominate him. Undaunted, Trump got the party to rally round him and won a non-consecutive second term; a feat achieved only once before, by Grover Cleveland around the end of the nineteenth century. His victory, against all predictions, was more decisive as he got more collegiate votes and, even though it does not matter, won the popular vote too which he did not get when he got elected the first term. Even his bitterest critics should accept this fact.
Zelensky was elected the president of Ukraine after the elected pro-Soviet president was deposed by a ‘peoples revolution’ engineered by the EU with the support of USA. After this, the EU attempted to bring Ukraine to NATO, disregarding the Munich agreement which precipitated the Russian invasion. He should have realised that, if not for the air-defence system which Trump authorised for Ukraine during his first term, Russian invasion would have been complete. It may well be that he was not aware as when this happened Zelensky may still have been the comedian acting the part of the president! Very likely, Trump was referring to this when he accused Zelensky of being ungrateful.
Zelensky also should have remembered that he disregarded requests from Trump, after his defeat by Biden, to implicate Biden’s son in some shady deals in Ukraine and that one of the last acts of Biden was to pardon his son and grant immunity to cover the alleged period. Perhaps, actions of the European leaders who embrace him every time they see him, as a long-lost brother, and invitations to address their parliaments has induced an element of the superiority complex in Zelensky that he behaved so combative.
Trump wanted to be the mediator to stop the war and spoke to Putin first. Instead of waiting for Trump to speak to him, egged on by EU leaders Zelensky started criticising Trump for not involving him in the talks. His remark “He should be on our side” demonstrated clearly that Zelensky had not understood the role of a mediator. His lack of political experience was the major reason for the fiasco in the White House and the subsequent actions of Trump clearly showed Zelensky where he stands! PM Starmer and President Macron seem to have given some sensible advice and he seems to be eating humble pie. In the process Trump has ensured that the European nations pay for their defence than piggy-backing on the US, which I am sure would please the American voter. By the way, though Macron talks big about defence France spends less than 2% of GDP. Trump seems vindicated. Of course, Trump could be blamed for being undiplomatic but he can afford to be as he has the upper hand!

Ranil on Al Jazeera
Zelensky has shown what not to do: instead of being diplomatic being aggressive when you need favours! Meanwhile, Ranil has shown what not to do when it comes to TV interviews. God only knows who advised him, and why, for him to go ‘Head to Head’ with Mehdi Hasan on Al-Jazeera. Perhaps, he wanted to broadcast to the world that he was the saviour of Sri Lanka! The experienced politician he is, one would have expected Ranil to realise that he would be questioned about his role in making Sri Lanka bankrupt as well, in addition to raising other issues.
The interview itself was far from head to head; more likely heads to head! It turned out to be an inquisition by Tiger supporters and the only person who spoke sense being Niraj Deva, who demonstrated his maturity by being involved in British and EU politics. The worst was the compere who seems keen to listen his own voice, reminding me of a Sinhala interviewer on a YouTube channel whose interviews I have stopped watching!
Ranil claims, after the interview was broadcast, that it had been heavily edited reduced from a two-hour recording. Surely, despite whatever reason he agreed to, he should have laid ground rules. He could have insisted on unedited broadcast or his approval before broadcast, if it was edited. It was very naïve of Ranil to have walked in to a trap for no gain. Though his performance was not as bad as widely reported, he should have been more composed at the beginning as he turned out to be later. Overall, he gave another opportunity for the Tiger rump and its supporters to bash Sri Lanka, unfortunately.
Medhi Hasan should watch some of David Frost interviews, especially the one with Richard Nixon, and learn how to elicit crucial information in a gentle exploratory manner than shouting with repeated interruptions. He does not seem to think it is necessary to give time for the interviewee to respond to his questions. I will never watch Al-Jazeera’s “Head to Head” again!
Ranil’s best was his parting shot; when asked by Hasan whether he would contest the next presidential election, he said “No, I will retire and watch Al-Jazeera and hope to see you better mannered”!
-
Foreign News22 hours ago
Search continues in Dominican Republic for missing student Sudiksha Konanki
-
News4 days ago
Alfred Duraiappa’s relative killed in Canada shooting
-
Opinion6 days ago
Insulting SL armed forces
-
Features3 days ago
Richard de Zoysa at 67
-
Editorial5 days ago
Ghosts refusing to fade away
-
Features3 days ago
SL Navy helping save kidneys
-
Features5 days ago
The Gypsies…one year at a time
-
Midweek Review4 days ago
Ranil in Head-to-Head controversy