Federalism and Separation of Powers Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Federalism and Separation of Powers - Essay Example This structural change in the government is embedded in the articles 1-3 of the US constitution and its main agenda is to reduce the tyranny within the country and to control government powers. This essay seeks to analyze the difference between federalism and separation of powers and hence their influence on the current state of governance. In a federal system, the national government grants power to the states government to apply own strategies in their own state and to induce innovation according to the laws of the state. In other words, each state is a free entity and is free to exercise own policies and to engage in diverse government cultures as they deem fit for the people of the particular state (Gerston, 2007). The advocates of this system support it on the ground that it is the best practice that is only effective in managing a diversified population such as one that exists in the United States, and that it allows the local people to have a better access to their leaders (Topher, 2007). In addition, each state is allowed to be creative and to learn from other states that are successful. In this system, the country government reserves most of the powers and acts by controlling power in the United States. However, the federal government has the disadvantage that it allows a non-unified policy implementation which often brings out confusion among the people, and that power control is minimal. The effect of the separation of powers is that the three branches of the government would act as a check and balance mechanism to protect the people over power abuse. Any policy would have to be analyzed by each branch of the government before its implementation. There is quite a difference in the two systems of power sharing with regard to the current system of power sharing in the US government. For instance, in the federal system, the citizens in overlapping states may be faced with confusion and they may

After the Revolutionary War Essay Example for Free

After the Revolutionary War Essay After the Revolutionary War, many Americans realized that the government established by the Articles of Confederation was not working. America needed a new form of government. It had to be strong enough to maintain national unity over a large geographic area, but not so strong as to become a tyranny. Unable to find an exact model in history to fit Americas unique situation, delegates met at Philadelphia in 1787 to create their own solution to the problem. Their creation was the United States Constitution. Before the Constitution could become the supreme law of the land, it had to be ratified or approved by at least nine of the thirteen states. When the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention signed the Constitution on September 17, 1787, they knew ratification would not be easy. Many people were bitterly opposed to the proposed new system of government. A public debate soon erupted in each of the states over whether the new Constitution should be accepted. More important, it was a crucial debate on the future of the United States. The Federalist Papers Nowhere was the furor over the proposed Constitution more intense than in New York. Within days after it was signed, the Constitution became the subject of widespread criticism in the New York newspapers. Many commentators charged that the Constitution diminished the rights Americans had won in the Revolution. Fearful that the cause for the Constitution might be lost in his home state, Alexander Hamilton devised a plan to write a series of letters or essays rebutting the critics. It is not surprising that Hamilton, a brilliant lawyer, came forward at this moment to defend the new Constitution. At Philadelphia, he was the only New Yorker to have signed the Constitution. The other New York delegates had angrily left the Convention convinced that the rights of the people were being abandoned. Hamilton himself was very much in favor of strengthening the central government. Hamilton’s Constitution would have called for a president elected for life with the power to appoint state governors. Hamilton soon backed away from these ideas, and decided that the Constitution, as written, was the best one possible. Hamilton published his first essay in the New York Independent Journal on October 27, 1787. He signed the articles with the Roman name Publius. (The use of pseudonyms by writers on public affairs was a common practice.) Hamilton soon recruited two others, James Madison and John Jay, to contribute essays to the series. They also used the pseudonym Publius. James Madison, sometimes called the Father of the Constitution, had played a major role during the Philadelphia Convention. As a delegate from Virginia, he participated actively in the debates. He also kept detailed notes of the proceedings and drafted much of the Constitution. Unlike Hamilton and Madison, John Jay of New York had not been a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. A judge and diplomat, he was serving as secretary of foreign affairs in the national government. Between October 1787 and August 1788, Publius wrote 85 essays in several New York newspapers. Hamilton wrote over 60 percent of these essays and helped with the writing of others. Madison probably wrote about a third of them with Jay composing the rest. The essays had an immediate impact on the ratification debate in New York and in the other states. The demand for reprints was so great that one New York newspaper publisher printed the essays together in two volumes entitled The Federalist, A Collection of Essays, written in favor of the New Constitution, By a Citizen of New York. By this time the identity of Publius, never a well-kept secret, was pretty well known. The Federalist, also called The Federalist Papers, has served two very different purposes in American history. The 85 essays succeeded by helping to persuade doubtful New Yorkers to ratify the Constitution. Today, The Federalist Papers helps us to more clearly understand what the writers of the Constitution had in mind when they drafted that amazing document 200 years ago.

Polluter Pays Principle Case Study

Polluter Pays Principle Case Study I. Introduction The Polluter pays principle (PPP) basically means that the producer of goods should be responsible for the cost of preventing any pollution caused as well as remedy any damage so caused. It will include full environmental costs i.e. cost of pollution or any other harm caused to the ecology and not just those which are immediately tangible costs.[1] The polluter pays principle is preventive and compensatory in nature. It may entail fixing criminal responsibility on polluter, to make him make good the harm or pay eco-tax or carbon tax or at least participate in preserving environment in some way. The principle of polluters pay has been interpreted differently in different countries and there seems to be no common definition. For instance, some countries impose retrospective liability on the polluter and different countries have different definitions for who is a polluter and what constitutes pollution[2]; range of costs to be borne by the polluter differs. It should also be noted that the above principle is more of a regional custom than part of international environmental law. The name of this rule is unnecessarily restrictive if taken literally. Pollution (harm associated with emission of wastes into environment) is only one of many forms of environmental degradation to which the rule has been applied. Initially, PPP was interpreted only as government not doing the clean up job for the polluters or the industries, but today the scenario has changed. The most popular interpretation of PPP is that apart from the government even the specific polluters should incur the responsibility for abating their contribution to a particular pollution problem. This is called equitable internalization. As polluters bear all the cost the distortions in international trade and investment arising from differential pollution abatement financing methods could be eliminated through the adoption of the PPP.[3] The polluter pays principle has been used as the beneficiary-pays principle which favours the costs of providing conservation goods (i.e. prevention or repair of environmental degradation) being allocated to those who benefit from those goods. The strict version requires costs be fully distributed among beneficiaries pro-rata to their shares of total benefits (User pays principle) while the weaker version requires that all beneficiaries cover full costs. (Beneficiary compensates principle)[4] This research paper aims as briefly discussing the development of the PPP, its implementation while referring to its ever expanding definitions as well as its advantages and limitation in the Indian and the International scenario. II. The economic aspect The PPP was initially conceived as an economic theory to maximize resource allocation. Pollution in economic terms simply means improper cost allocation.[5] That is, the cost of one resource, i.e., water or air, is not properly reflected in the product price. Initially, people had the common belief that neither air nor water was a scarce resource and so its use was free to all and producers could discharge waste into the air or water without accounting for the use of that resource as part of production costs. They simply passed the cost of using the air or water for waste disposal on to the future users of those resources. This failure to properly allocate costs stimulates over-production leading ultimately to a market failure. Such failure, if not corrected, will result in pollution which needs to be adequately paid for. This is commonly known as the theory of internalization of external costs. Thus, polluter pays strives to internalize environmental externalities, thereby mandating that environmental harms be factored into market price. This informs consumers of the true costs of industrial activity and discourages environmentally harmful behavior. It could also be used to oblige nations to reflect in market terms the environmental externalities of their industrial development. This would diminish the incentive to pursue comparative advantage through a willingness to impose greater externalities on the environment.[6] PPP favours corrective justice and is concerned very less with idea of fault. When reduced to its most basic logic and applied to the interstate level, the polluter pays principle serves a reparative function: one who causes harm must remedy it. This logic is particularly compelling given that these harms impinge upon common concerns of humanity. Furthermore, under this principle it is not the responsibility of government to meet the costs involved in either prevention of environmental damage, or in carrying out remedial action, because the effect of this would be to shift the financial burden of the pollution incident to the taxpayer.[7] III. International Background The recognition of the vice of pollution and its impact on future resources was realised during the early part of 1970. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, during a panel discussion in 1971, concluded that the total environmental expenditure required for improvement of the environment was overestimated but could be reduced by increased environmental awareness and control. In 1972, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development adopted the polluter pays principle as a method for pollution cost allocation, including for accidental pollution. This principle was also discussed during the 1972 Paris Summit.[8] It was the EU which took the lead in promoting the PPP when in 1974, it made it mandatory that this principle be uniformly applied to all its member states. The current Fourth Action Programme makes it clear that the cost of preventing and eliminating nuisance must in principle be borne by the polluter, and the PPP has now been incorporated into the European Community Treaty as part of the new Articles on the environment which were introduced by the Single European Act of 1986. Article 130(2) of the Treaty states that environmental considerations are to play a part in all the policies of the Community, and that action is to be based on three principles: the need for preventative action; the need for environmental damage to be rectified at source; and that the polluter should pay.[9] PPP is included in Article 174 of the EU Treaty (1997) and since 1990, when the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation was agreed upon by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the PPP has been acknowledged as a general principle of international environmental law. In US, the principle was adopted by the enactment of Comprehensive Environment response Compensation and liability Act, 1980. World Commission on Environment and Development (1986) also legally supported PPP through sustainable development principle 10.[10] Later international documents like the 1992 Rio declaration: principle 16[11], Agenda 21 and the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) i.e. Johannesburg Plan of Implementation reiterated the same principle. Some of the salient principles of Sustainable Development, as culled-out from Brundtland Report include PPP. IV. India and the polluter pays principle Policy: National conservation strategy and policy statement on environment and development, 1992 recommends   â€Å"operationalisation of polluter pays principle by introducing effluent tax, resource cess for industry and implementation of standards based on resource consumption and production capacity so that environmental considerations could be integrated while encouraging industrial growth.† National environment policy, 2006 is more specific in recognizing the polluter pays principle in order to achieve economic efficiency in environmental conservation. This Principle requires that the services of environmental resources be given economic value, and such value to count equally with the economic values of other goods and services, in analysis of alternative courses of action. Judiciary: The judiciary in India first recognised the polluter pays principle as a sound principle in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India Ors[12](Bichhri Village case) which interpreted PPP to mean that â€Å"absolute liability of harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution, but also to the cost of restoring environmental degradation. This principle forms an important part of sustainable development†[13]. Explaining the principle, the Court held that it is not the role of the government to meet the cost either in the prevention of such damage or in carrying out remedial action, because the effect of this would be shifting the financial burden of the pollution incident to the tax payers and why should the tax payers share this burden? It should be the polluter who should be made responsible for their wrong doings.[14] Thus, according to this principle, the responsibility for repairing the damage is that of the offending industry. Sections 3 and 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 empower the Central Government to give directions and take measures for giving effect to this principle. The social action litigation initiated in August, 1989 relating to production of ‘H acid in chemical industries near Bichhri village. Since the toxic untreated waste waters were allowed to flow out freely and because the untreated toxic sludge was thrown in the open in and around the complex, the toxic substances percolated deep into the earth polluting the underground water. The water in the wells and the streams has become dirty and unfit, and is no longer potable. Even the land has become barren and can no longer be cultivated. Further it was also observed that even trees like eucalyptus planted in contaminated fields show leaf burning and stunted growth. Many old trees which were badly affected due to contamination are still growing under stress conditions as a result of soil contamination. The resulting misery to the villagers needs no emphasis. It spread disease, death and disaster in the village and the surrounding areas. Most of these industries were never even granted a no objection certificate. Keeping this in mind, NEERI report suggestedthat the principle of Polluter Pays should be applied in this case. The cost of damage to be disbursed to the affected villagers is estimated at Rs. 342.8 lakhs. This cost needs to be borne by the management of the industry in keeping with the PPP and the doctrine of Strict/Absolute liability, as applied to Sriram Food and Fertilizers Industry in the case of Oleum leak in 1985. It was finally directed that the Central Government shall determine the amount required for carrying out the remedial measures over the damage caused to ecology of the region. It was kept open for the villagers to institute suits for suitable relief. The court said that no distinction is to be made in this behalf as between a large-scale industry and a small-scale industry or for that matter between a large-scale industry and a medium-scale industry. All chemical industries, whether big or small, should be allowed to be established only after taking into considerations all the environmental aspects, appropriate directions in that behalf may be issued under Section 3 and 5 of the Environment Act, the Central Government shall ensure that the directions given by it are implemented forthwith. The Central Government and the R.P.C.B. shall file quarterly Reports before this Court with respect to the progress in the implementation of Directions. In S. Janannath v Union of India[15], applying the said principle, the Court held the aquaculture (shrimp culture) industry that had been functioning within the Coastal Regulatory Zone (CRZ) Notification as liable to pay the affected persons on the basis of the polluter pays principle. In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India[16], a three judge bench went a step further and regarded both the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle as part of environmental law.[17] Kuldip Singh, J. after referring to the principles evolved in various international Conferences and to the concept of Sustainable Development, stated that the PPP now governs the law in our country too, as is clear from Articles 47, 48-A and 51-A(g) of our Constitution and that, in fact, in the various environmental statutes, such as the Water Act, 1974 and other statutes, including the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, these concepts are already implied. The learned Judge declared that these pri nciples have now become part of our law. In fact on the facts of the case before this Court, it was directed that the authority to be appointed under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 shall implement the PPP.[18] Next, reference may also be made to the decision in the case of A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) and Ors[19]and Karnataka[20] where, after referring to the principles noticed in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forums Case, the same have been explained in more detail with a view to enable the Courts and the Tribunals or environmental authorities to properly apply the said principles in the matters which come before them. It was in this case that the onus of proof was fixed to be on the polluter. In MC Mehta v. Union of India[21] it was held that even if PPP is not interpreted as a principle of environment law in India as stated in Vellore case, it still remains a principle of international law which has acquired the status of customary international law. It is a well-settled law under the Indian Constitution that rules of customary international law not contrary to municipal law be deemed to be incorporated into the domestic law. And, therefore, once declared as customary international law, precautionary principle naturally became part of Indian municipal law. Relying on the above judgment, in M.C.Mehta v. UOI[22], the SC ordered the Calcutta Tanneries to relocate and pay compensation for the loss of ecology/environment of the affected areas and the suffering of the residents. Similarly, in the Kamalnaths case[23], the court by considering the PPP as the law of the land, ordered that one who pollutes the environment must pay to reverse the damage caused by his acts. Thus, Span Motels who were illegally and callously interfering with the natural flow of Beas were directed to pay compensation by way of costs for restitution of environment and ecology of the area. In the matter of enforcement of Fundamental Rights under Article 21, under Public Law domain, the Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 32 of the Constitution, has awarded damages against those who have been responsible for disturbing the ecological balance either by running the industries or any other activity which has the effect of causing pollution in the environment. The Court while awarding damages also enforces the PPP which is widely accepted as a means of paying for the cost of pollution and control. To put in other words, the wrongdoer, the polluter, is under an obligation to make good the damage caused to the environment.[24]Again in MC Mehta v. UOI[25] a question arose as to the fate of mining activities in the Aravalli range in Gurgaon and if any, payments have to be made by the mine operators and/or by State Government towards environmental fund applying PPP. Also, in Research foundation case[26], PPP was applied to the case where a high power committee on hazardous wastes noticed 133 containers being illegally imported under the garb of lubricating oil. Recommendation of Monitoring Committee that only appropriate course to protect environment was to direct destruction of consignments by incineration was followed and the Importers held liable to pay amounts to be spent for destroying hazardous waste on basis of precautionary principle and PPP. The decision in Deepak Nitrite Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and others[27] laid down a proposition that in absence of actual degradation of environment by the offending activities, the payment for repair on application of the PPP cannot be ordered. In this case a Public Interest litigation was filed   before High Court alleging large scale pollution caused by industries located in Gujarat Industrial Development industrial corporation estate at Nandesari. In Tirupur Dyeing[28] case, public interest litigation was filed against the discharge of effluents into river. A large number of farmers have suffered because of the pollution caused by them. They could not cultivate any crop in the said land. The Pollution Control Board is directed to ensure that no pollution is caused, giving strict adherence, to the statutory provisions. polluter-pays are the integral part and parcel of national environmental law. The appellant is bound to compensate the persons who have suffered the loss because of the activity of its members, as water of the river is neither worth for irrigation purpose nor potable. It was also reiterated that principles of polluters-pay and precautionary principle have to be read with the doctrine of sustainable development. V. Conclusions Even with all its success in Indian scenario, the polluter pays principle is not a cure for all of the worlds environmental problems. It has a potential only for problems that stem from identifiable polluters who have sufficient economic resources to pay their way and even under the broadest definitions of pollution, the PPP cannot assist with serious environmental issues such as declining biological diversity or destruction of ecologically critical habitats. Other problems, though pollution related, are the aggregated consequence of the disparate actions of millions of individuals who are just trying to maintain a subsistence livelihood in overcrowded cities or desertified rural areas. The PPP would be inappropriate in such situations; these impoverished polluters are in no position to pay for their contribution to the worlds environmental burden. Most developing countries are yet to completely subscribe to the polluter pays principle as a major environmental policy guideline due to difficulty in implementing the same and due to its vague nature. The poor households, informal sector firms, and subsistence farmers cannot bear any additional charges for waste disposal while the small and medium-size firms from the formal sector, which mainly serve the home market, find it difficult to pass on higher costs to the domestic end-users of their products. Also, the exporters in developing countries usually cannot shift the burden of cost internalisation to foreign customers due to elastic demand. Lastly, many environmental problems in developing countries are caused by an overexploitation of common pool resources. Yet the Indian Judiciary and the recent national environment policy have enthusiastically applied the policy successfully on case to case basis. Its development into a well rounded principle can   only be judged with time but its present usefulness is very apparent. Bibliography Ashford Nicholas A. and Charles C. Caldert, Environmental law, policy and economics: Reclaiming the environmental agenda, MIT press, London, 2008 Candice Stevens, Interpreting the Polluter Pays Principle in the Trade and Environment Context 27 Cornell Intl L. J. 577 (1994) Cardwell Michael, The polluter pays principle in European Community law and its impact on United Kingdom farmers Okla. L. Rev. 89 Choudhary Himanshu, A short note on the Polluter Pays Principle available at http://www.indlaw.com/display.aspx?2601 last visited on 27 January 2010 Dam Shubhankar and Vivek Tewary, Polluting environment, polluting constitution worse than a polluted environment? 17 J.Envtl. L. 383 Divan Shyam, Demin Rsencraz, Environment law and policy in India, second ed., Oxford University press, London, 2002 De Lucia, Vito, Polluter pays principle at http://www.eoearth.org/article/Polluter_pays_principle last visited on 9 February 2010 Drumbl Mark A., Poverty, wealth and obligation in international environment law 76 Tut.L.Rev.843 Dube Indrajit, Environment Jurisprudence: polluter liability, Lexis-Nexis Butterworths, Delhi, 2007 Fitzmaniaca Malgosia, Contemporary issues in International environment law, Edward elgar publishing inc, USA, 2009 Havenga Peter, A Few Steps Closer Towards Establishing the Polluter Pays Principle (1997) 9 SA Merc LJ Interpretation of Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) In India available at http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l54-Interpretation-of-Polluter-Pays-Principle.html last visited on 27 January 2010 Nash Jonathan R., Too Much Market? Conflict between Tradable Pollution Allowances and the Polluter Pays Principle, 24 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 465, 466 (2000) Sands Philip, Principles of International law: Frameworks, standards and implementation: Volume-1, CSERGE, New York, 1995 Sanford E. Gaines, Polluter-Pays Principle: From Economic Equity to Environmental Ethos, 26 Tex. Intl L. J. 463 (1991) Senagar Dharmendra, Environment law, Prentice Hall of India ltd, New Delhi, 2007 Shiraz Rustomjee, Global environmental law and India, 36 Intl J.Legal Info.342 Sohn, The Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment, 14 HARV. INTL L.J. 423(1973) Stuart Bell and Donald Mcgillivray, Environmental law, seventh ed., Oxford University Press, London, 2008 Ursula Kettlewell, The answer to global pollution? A critical examination of problems and potential of polluter-pays principle, 3 Colo. J. Intl Envtl. L. Poly 429 (1992) [1] Research Foundation for Science and Technology and Natural Resources Policy v. UOI and Another (2005)13SCC186 [2] According to Pearce, a polluter is a party emitting damaging wastes to the environment. This has often being broadened to any party who degrades the natural environment. Bromley argues, however, that emissions only constitute pollution when a victim is within the realm of emission. In some circumstances the victim may be seen as causing pollution by oming to nuisance and should therefore, by Bromleys reasoning be regarded as the polluter. [3] (Bell and Mcgillivray, 344) [4] (Havenga, 19) [5] (Kettlewell, 429) [6] ( Nash, 455) [7] (Dam and Tewary, 383) [8] ( Cardwell, 94) [9] M.C.Mehta v. Kamalnath (2000)6SCC213 [10] States shall prevent or abate any trans-boundary environmental interference which could cause or causes significant harm. [11] Principle 16 of the Rio Declaration provides that national authorities should endeavour to promote the internalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution, with due regard to the public interest and without distorting international rade and investment. [12] (1996) 3 SCC 212 [13] N.D Jayal v. Union of India 2004(9)SCC362 [14] M.C.Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case) 1996(8)SCC 462 [15] (1997) 2 SCC 87 [16] (1996) 5 SCC 647 [17] The same was reiterated in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India 2000(10)SCC664 [18] This obiter was later applied in the case of A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayadu (Retd.) Others AIR1999SC812 [19] [(1996) 5 SCC 718] [20] (2006)6SCC371 [21] 1997(3)SCC715 [22] 1997(2)SCC411 [23]M.C.Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Ors (1997) 1 SCC 388 [24] M.C Mehta v. Kamalnath (2000)6SCC213 [25] (2004)12SCC118 [26] Supra to 1 [27] (2004)6SCC402 [28] (2009)9SCC737

I Will Write Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow :: Personal Narrative Writing

I Will Write Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde Life, I think, if we could map it out on some sort of cosmic parchment, would be a tapestry of paths taken, woven in on each other in a tangle resembling nothing if not a spider web. Somewhere in the midst of these interlocking and twisting trails of all the ways I've gone, the ways I've planned to go and the roads I have abandoned I managed to find two trends that form a frame for all the other twists and turns that may come. These two trends, two paths that I'm currently in the midst of walking, are the practical-and-mired-in- reality realm of economics and the freer, more creative area of writing. When it came to this paper, to actually taking both and projecting them into the future, I found myself coming up against one specific question. How on earth can I wrap the two of them together, meld them into something that stands as a unit? The answer that I found, for now at least, is that they cannot be melded; each is too firmly intent on standing on its own. But this doesn't mean t hat they do not coincide again and again from time to time. Each has its future, separate from the other, but neither precludes the other. Neither stands completely isolated from the other. Even with the advances of technology and the changing trends that the world is bringing to bear with a vengeance, there's still a phenomenon that allows for the coexistence of such different and yet inextricable fields. 'E pluribus unum'--that's the slogan, right? I think it applies, and perhaps more importantly, that it will continue to apply. Economics, in the present is a hot topic for discussion. Everyone, from the attendant at the gas station to candidates for political office, has their opinions and theories about it all. Economics, in its simplest definition, is the study of human choices and decisions when unlimited wants meet limited or scarce resources. As far as I can tell, and as far as I've been told, we've yet to come up with a technology that eliminates this problem of scarcity, so it stands to reason that the field itself will exist in the coming decades. With that much established, little else is certain.

Chemistry Project Essay

Caffeine is a naturally-occurring stimulant, found in several plants. Caffeine is water soluble, and is extracted into the brewed cup when preparing tea, coffee, or other caffeinated drinks. The most well-known plants containing caffeine are the tea plant, Camellia sinensis, coffee, yerba matà ©, and guayusa. Although tea is known to have a number of health benefits, heavy caffeine use is known to have unpleasant effects and negative impacts on health, including anxiety and insomnia, and for this reason many tea drinkers seek to moderate their caffeine intake. The amount of caffeine in tea tends to be low, but is high enough to be a matter of concern for people drinking large quantities of tea, as well as people sensitive to caffeine for medical reasons. The Caffeine Molecule How much caffeine is in tea? The caffeine content of tea varies widely from one tea to the next, and depends on how the tea is brewed, but tends to be within the range of 15-70mg per 8 ounce cup. Caffeine can also be measured in terms of milligrams of caffeine per grams of dry tea. A teaspoon of dry tea leaves tends to weigh around 2.5 grams, the amount usually used to make a single cup, although this varies greatly by the type of tea. One study of the caffeine content of teas (after steeping) found that the caffeine content of tea varied from about 3 mg/g to 30mg/g, which would result in a cup of tea containing between 7.5 mg and 75 mg of tea. In most cases, tea has much less caffeine than coffee; a typical cup of coffee contains 80-135 mg of caffeine. However, it is important to note that these figures are per cup, not per serving, and in the case of large serving sizes, and also with espresso and other heavily-caffeinated drinks, the caffeine per serving can be considerably higher. In the U.S. the standard â€Å"small† serving size is 12 ounces. A recent study of commercial coffee vendors in Australia found that roughly a quarter of espresso samples contained over 120 mg of caffeine per serving, about 1/8th contained 167 mg or more per serving, and the highest contained 214 mg per serving. The authors of this study concluded that the most often-cited figures on caffeine content of coffee tend to underestimate the actual caffeine content. How much caffeine is safe to consume? To place these figures in perspective, the current consensus of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is that it is safe for pregnant women to consume up to 200 mg of caffeine daily. For the general public, the Mayo clinic recommends that 200-300 mg of caffeine daily is safe, but that 500-600 mg daily can cause a number of health problems. If drinking a relatively stronger tea containing 60mg / cup, 8 cups a day would be a safe amount, or 3 for pregnant women. For a weaker tea, with 30mg / cup, twice this amount would still be a safe amount of caffeine. Keep in mind that different people react differently to caffeine, so an amount that is safe or unpleasant for one person may not be healthy for everyone. L-theanine in tea interacts with caffeine In addition to caffeine, tea also contains L-theanine; theanine can interact with caffeine, allowing a smaller dose of caffeine to have a stronger effect in terms of boosting concentration and alertness. This may explain why tea seems to provide a stronger boost in alertness for some people than one would expect from its caffeine content alone. Do black, green, or white teas contain more or less caffeine? Many tea companies, and even some reputable entities such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture, have made misleading generalizations about the caffeine content of broad classes of tea. It is a widespread myth that black tea contains more caffeine than green tea, and another myth that white tea contains the least caffeine of all teas. Studies that have actually examined the caffeine content of a large number of different teas have consistently found that caffeine levels vary more among individual teas than across broad categories of tea such as black, white, green, oolong, or pu-erh. A study published in 2005 in the Journal of Food Science listed, among other things, the caffeine content of 77 different teas, and found a broad range of caffeine content among both green and black teas. Surprisingly, the tea in this study that was found to contain the most caffeine was a white tea, solidly dispelling the myth about white tea’s caffeine content. A more recent study in the 2008 Journal of Analytical Toxicology examined the caffeine contents of a number of teas, and found that they ranged from 14 to 61 mg per 6 or 8 oz serving, with â€Å"no observable trend in caffeine concentration due to the variety of tea†. Very few tea companies have examined the caffeine content of a large number of samples of their teas; one that has, Camellia Sinensis Tea House, found similar results, that the caffeine level varies widely from one tea to the next, and does not show clear trends of caffeine levels across different varieties of teas. One possible exception to this observation is that matcha is known to contain very high levels of caffeine, consistently much higher than other teas. This is due in part to higher caffeine levels in the leaf used to produced matcha, but it is also due to the fact that, because matcha is a powdered tea, the entire tea leaf is consumed when brewing, so a cup of prepared matcha contains 100% of the caffeine in the leaf. What determines the amount of caffeine in a particular tea? Caffeine protects the tender young leaf buds of the tea plant from being eaten by insects. There are so many different factors influencing the caffeine content of tea, that it is very hard to make generalizations predicting the caffeine content of tea. Caffeine levels vary widely from one particular tea to the next. The only certain way to know the caffeine level of a particular tea is to actually test it in a laboratory. Tea can be made from different parts of the tea plant, and these parts contain different quantities of caffeine. Leaf buds (tips) and younger leaves are higher in caffeine than older, mature leaves. This pattern can be explained by the fact that, for the tea plant, caffeine acts a natural insecticide, serving to protect the plant against being eaten by insects. Since the tips and tender young leaves are most vulnerable to insects, these parts of the plant are highest in caffeine; the older leaves are tougher and thus lower in caffeine. â€Å"Tippy† teas such as Yunnan Gold or Silver Needle White Tea (Bai Hao Yinzhen) are thus higher in caffeine than large-leaf teas such as Lapsang Souchong, a black tea (Souchongs are made of mature leaves) or Shou Mei, a white tea. The varietal (cultivar or specific horticultural variety) of tea plant used to produced tea can profoundly affect caffeine levels in tea. Varietal is independent of type of tea (green, white, black, oolong, etc.), and different types of tea can be produced from the same varietal. Variation in caffeine content among different varietals can lead to teas grown under similar conditions, with similar appearance and other qualities, having different caffeine levels. Roasting can also reduce the caffeine levels in tea. In the 2005 study mentioned above, one particular sample of Hojicha, a Japanese roasted green tea, was found to have less caffeine even than some decaffeinated teas. Oolong teas are usually roasted to varying degrees, and can be lower in caffeine, although like all types of tea, oolong teas vary greatly in caffeine content. It should be noted that the roasting processes both for hojicha and oolongs vary greatly, and the caffeine content of most of these teas has not been extensively studied, so it is not safe to conclude that hojicha or roasted oolong is necessarily low in caffeine. The blending of tea with caffeine-free ingredients to produce flavored teas can result in a lower total caffeine content so long as less total tea leaf is used in the blend. Scenting tea with flowers or flavoring tea with essential oils of plants does not add as much weight as blending with loose herbs, and thus does not lower the caffeine content (by weight) of the blend as much. How you brew tea affects caffeine content The quantity of leaf used and the length of time the leaves are steeped both directly influence the caffeine content of the final cup of tea. Using more leaves and steeping for a longer time both increase the caffeine in the resulting cup. Our page on brewing tea has more discussion of how to brew tea. Can you â€Å"decaffeinate† your own tea by steeping it briefly in water? Short answer: no. A number of sources make the claim that you can â€Å"decaffeinate† your own tea by making a brief infusion in hot water, and then discarding this infusion. Unfortunately, this process does not work; if it did, tea companies would not have to resort to expensive and involved decaffeination processes to produce decaf tea. Caffeine tends to diffuse in hot water at the same rate as many of the chemicals responsible for the flavor and aroma of tea, so if the tea still tastes flavorful, it probably still contains caffeine. Most (but not all) herbal teas contain no caffeine Although caffeine does occur in a number of plants, the overwhelming majority of herbal teas are caffeine free. The most notable exception is Yerba mate. Other plants containing caffeine are very rare as ingredients in herbal tea. In addition to exploring other herbal teas, people desiring caffeine-free tea-like drinks might want to try South African rooibos and honeybush, two plants which are often described as being similar to tea in flavor, health benefits, and manner of production.

Feminine Virtues in the Ibo Tribe essays

Feminine Virtues in the Ibo Tribe essays In Things Fall Apart, Chinua Achebe shows the importance of feminine virtues in the Ibo tribe. In the novel women, regarded highly for their importance in bearing children and acting as wives, receive praised for their significance. Achebe illustrates the women of the tribe as strong, powerful people whose importance you cannot fail to notice. Anasi was a middle aged woman, tall and strongly built. There was authority in her bearing and she looked every inch the ruler of the womenfolk in a large and prosperous family (Achebe 20). Often entrusted with instilling morality in their children and governing their conduct, women in the tribe hold high regard in the respects of their fellow tribes people. A female goddess will remind men to uphold their morals and mind their conduct, much the way a mother would her child. Once again, a mother holds a high magnitude in the tribe. Mothers and wives appear as the only two positions that women in the Ibo tribe can receive praise for. Outside these roles of acting as mother and/or wife, a woman will receive little, if any respect. It was clear from the way the crowd stood that this was a ceremony for me. There were many women, but they looked on from the fringe like outsiders (Achebe 87). With festivals held in public places, men presided and took seats of honor in front. Women, forced to stand at the edges, looked on from there because they simply did not hold importance. Also, throughout the book, Achebe emphasizes the womens role in childbearing and their fault if the childs would not occur healthily. Nneka has had four previous pregnancies and childbirths. But each time she had born twins, and they had been immediately thrown away. Her husband and his family were already becoming highly critical of such a woman and were not unduly perturbed when they found she had fled to join the Christians. It was a good rid ...