Archive for December, 2012

The Power of Money: No one would be poor.

December 10, 2012

The Power of Money: No one would be poor.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2012/aug/16/after-capitalism-costas-lapavitsas-money-and-credit

If Bill Gates were to give $50 000 to every poor person in developing countries I am sure the Millennium Development Goals would all be met by 2015.  It is due to lack of money that people become very poor in developing countries whilst their leaders become very rich through syphoning the country’s money to rich countries.

Without the means to buy land, develop it in order produce goods for their survival and well-being poor people will always be at the mercy of Aid. It is about time the rich countries stopped giving aid which is also squandered by the governments and give money to all poor people and see if the poor people will remain poor. They would be able to send their children to schools, hence, the achievement of universal primary education; hospitals will be improved because they would have a voice in running them therefore, reducing child mortality; HIV will be greatly reduced because everyone would have access to medicines and good food; prostitution would be reduced because the main reason why women are forced into prostitution is to feed their families hence, the promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women; people would be able to develop their environment land sustainably; most importantly will be the eradication of hunger. With money, good food, good health I am sure global partnership would be easy to develop without shunning each other.

Advertisements

SHOULDN’T AMERICA BE THINKING SERIOUSLY HARD ABOUT REDUCING HER OWN C02 EMISSIONS NOW?

December 10, 2012

Quite apart from the deluged list of existent natural disasters usually plaguing America ( though as well some other nations) — from the severally named tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, and cyclones, to the arrays of thought-provoking and devastating heat waves, landslides, blizzards, and wild-fires; not to mention a few of the heart-drenching volcanoes, cold waves, droughts, storms, avalanche and famines — and most especially, the overwhelming impacts and destructions they wreck on the populace once they struck, one is being compelled to start thinking that the powerful nation America has yet to analytically, and fully grasp the  real scale of the effects of these disasters and their fast paced backward-pronging prowess at globalisation, baring her present posture in the frame of things.

Since almost two decade now, the world has been alerted to the fact that greenhouse gases results from collective array of human activities, and are chiefly responsible causes of global warming and climate change. Current data states, that the upper safety limit for atmospheric CO2 is 350 parts per million (ppm) and atmospheric CO2 levels have stayed higher than 350 ppm since early 1988, thus resulting in the surge of global call-to-actions, to finding practicable, cooperative and sustainable ways of reducing C02 to less than 350 ppm safe-level, and to foster an enduring practice that will check these accelerating rates.

So far — with a mind-capture of the gory effects of Hurricane Sandy, the recent Fukushima, Japan earthquake, the devastating flooding in Nigeria, the  Wildfires in Colorado and the shaky Mudslides in Oregon — if one were to assume a cynical view of the debilitating impacts of C02 emissions on the entire planet earth as a whole, and the way the world leaders, through United Nations and its security council, has played out the integration of Emission Trading politics into the global efforts at reducing C02, it may make good reason, to begin to logically question the leadership of America as a world power in its global responsibility and efforts to preventing the continuous increase in the scale of C02 emission in the atmospheric space and the magnitude at which global corporations (backed by America) foster the ironic sustenance of these destructive systems.

Given the benefit of doubts and a grand golden chance of over a decade — from 1988 till date — America has had its very fair share of the leadership to steer the world away from increasingly dangerous levels of C02 consumptions – however, current data still show clearly that even America herself has yet to get her own house in order —- considering the fact that based on C02 emission estimates from fossil-fuel use and cement production for 2008 alone, the United States still ranks as the world’s second largest national source of fossil fuel-related CO2 emissions behind China with emissions of 1.55 billion metric tons of carbon. Analytically, this means that the U.S. has emitted in total of over 90 billion metric tons of carbon since 1800 from fossil-fuel consumption and cement production, indicating that it’s not only that the U.S. fossil-fuel emissions have more than doubled since the 1950s, her per capital values of metric tons of carbon per person are also at the highest levels, compared with that of any other nation in the industrialized world.

According to recent data from the Mauna Loa Observatory, 40% of U.S. fossil-fuel emissions come from the consumption of petroleum products. The United States was completely reliant on coal until after the Industrial Revolution and now coal usage accounts for approximately 37% of U.S. fossil-fuel CO2 emissions. As at end of October 2012, current C02 emission worldwide tops at 391.03 ppm, (far above the 350 ppm target) and the trend still indicates on the increase, except some serious actions is taken, far away from the usual rhetoric’s that we are almost used to hearing from America. How then will it not be justified for us to begin to question the leadership of a nation, who supposedly is leading a global movement against c02 reduction, and by herself is still a top contender and contributor to the global c02 emission quota itself? How much can we truly trust the intentions and efforts of the United States in the global frame of things?

In my humble opinion, and am sure that of many others, who truly cares for planet earth to survive, and wants to mitigate the constant harassments and destructions meted by natural disasters — it is time that America begin to think and act more seriously in tune with reducing her own c02 emissions in real terms, if it sincerely wants the world, that she leads, to follow that order. The signs on the wall points that, we are tired of the usual shifting of the blames to developing and under-developed countries of Africa, Asia and the Pacific. The world is attuned and constantly detesting the usual rhetoric’s characteristically of the developed North. For America’s leadership to stay alive and be recognised further, it must prove its own onions (being tested by fire and brimstones) not only by checkmating her own excesses and those of her other developed allies, but also by taking an active and robust lead (if not partnership) in a measurable, mutually-beneficial and dedicated plan of actions (devoid of United Nations politicking) to guiding and compassing the world’s direction to a safe and safer climate protection practices.

Is the private sector the solution to the global unemployment crisis? A case of Tunisia

December 10, 2012

Young people from Tunisia are standing up and fighting for their right. They do not want or trust the hand-outs from ‘developed countries’ or from private institutions. One of the institutions that are not welcomed by Tunisians is the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. This is because the investments of EBRD are often linked to Public Private Partnership (PPP) which is another term for privatisation of common resources like water. This means that services like waste management and telecommunications are opened up for the private sector. Whilst EBRD were in Eastern Europe, investments were seen to open up public services to private institutions.

The question then is how do we help developing countries to develop without making things worse?

Climate change on the agenda!

December 2, 2012

Climate change seems to be on the agenda again. The climate change conference takes place in Doha, Qatar National Convention Center from Monday 26th November to Friday 6th December. A report has been released, saying that concentration of carbon dixode in the atmosphere is up by 20% since 2000.  I asked myself the question: who is responsible for this increase? well, according to the UN environment Programme (UNep), the concentration of the greenhouse gases emitting this carbon dixode has led to this increase.

One thing that will be interesting to know  is how climate change will be resolved at this conference.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/21/emissions-cuts-climate-change-un

Is Cap and trade an effective and sustainable solution to climate change?

December 2, 2012

The Story of Cap & Trade (2009) – YouTube

Cap and trade is definately not the way forward. We need to develop real effective and sustainable solutions to climate change. What do you think?

Kenya: a shining example of grassroots development

December 2, 2012

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/video/2012/may/15/flower-kenya-lake-naivasha-video

Check this video.

When locals are given the power to improve and better their lives nothing can actually stop them.  On a positive instead of governments giving land to the foreign investors the Kenyans have proved that they can do what the foreign investors would have done.  Jobs for the local people have been created and money earned is given to the locals and remains in the country.

Is modern agriculture the best way to feed the world?

December 2, 2012

I stand on the point that modern agriculture styles (commercial farming) are not the best way to help to feed the world. There is a need to start empowering local farmers to grow food in their own community. The problem of access to food is not just a problem in the developing world, it is also becoming a global problem. Food security is causing food insecurity for people in developing countries.

The three pillars of food security;
Food availability: sufficient quantities of food available on a consistent basis.
Food access: having sufficient resources to obtain appropriate foods for a nutritious diet.
Food use: appropriate use based on knowledge of basic nutrition and care, as well as adequate water and sanitation.

Have not had positive impacts on people in developing countries, they have however had a negative impact, because of trade liberalisation. Food does not need to be imported into countries that are able to grow food. Food should not be grown on a mass scale by corporate organisations and then exported to other countries leaving local communities stranded because they cannot afford to buy food, and local farmers not been able to compete with corporate giants.

How To Rob Africa

December 2, 2012

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2012/11/201211714649852604.html#.UK7CqrW9HPA.facebook

Why does the Western world feed Africa with one hand while taking from it with the other?

I quote” The world’s wealthy countries often criticise African nations for corruption – especially that perpetrated by those among the continent’s government and business leaders who abuse their positions by looting tens of billions of dollars in national assets or the profits from state-owned enterprises that could otherwise be used to relieve the plight of some of the world’s poorest peoples.

Yet the West is culpable too in that it often looks the other way when that same dirty money is channelled into bank accounts in Europe and the US”.

It is very clear that without the aid of the wealthy countries corruption would be very minimal in African countries with a lot of mineral wealth.  They then turn around and pretend to be giving aid and yet it could be the money they laundered being given back as aid.

The provision of off-shore companies has made it very easy for some corrupt government officials to get rich overnight at the expense of the local people.  Like in most African countries which have mineral wealth, only the government ministers, army generals and the heads of states become filthy rich whilst the masses suffer poverty, hunger and diseases.

Indigenous Rights: A key to Environmental sustainability

December 2, 2012

The Brundtland Commission’s report on World Commission on Environment and Development titled ‘Our Common Future’, argued that development can only be sustainable if current use does not leave the environment depleted for future use. This implies that present use of resources must not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs from the use of the same resource.  If this is true, then allowing Indigenous people the right to use, manage and share control of their local environment is the way forward for environmental sustainability.

Because indigenous people often live in remote and isolated communities, their very livelihoods have been closely tied to their environment. This makes protecting their environment a critical factor to their own survival. The areas they inhabit have no infrastructure such as roads, schools, health etc and outside the mainstream of the national economy. Though these areas are often fragile, they are rich in resources and diverse ecosystems, exposing them to commercial and economic exploitation. The distinct livelihoods of Indigenous people make them depend on access to land and natural resources which must be sustained.

As a result, environmental sustainability is crucial and therefore of growing concern for indigenous communities globally. Economic growth and development, regardless of what form it takes, poses a threat to the physical, social and cultural survival of indigenous communities and their livelihoods. Even so-called environmental friendly initiatives such as bio-fuel and hydroelectricity have implications for the environment and the livelihoods of indigenous communities. Although the United Nations in 2007 adopted the ‘UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples’ most governments are paying less attention to these rights. They were suppose to provide a special safeguards for indigenous peoples and promote respect for their rights to Free, Prior and Informed Consent on all issues affect their livelihoods.

It is against this background that representatives of indigenous people and civil society Groups, in June 2012 gathered in Rio, Brazil, with heads of states and governments to push forward a global agenda on sustainable development. These groups provided a united front for world leaders to make a political commitment to protect and promote the rights of indigenous communities. In their contribution, representatives of Indigenous People put forward a five point resolution to be considered in the final communiqué of the Rio+20 summit. These were as following:

  1. Recognition of culture as the fourth pillar of sustainable development.
  2. Recognition of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a standard in the implementation of sustainable development at all levels.
  3. The cornerstones of green economies are diverse local economies, in the context of poverty eradication and sustainable development, biodiversity loss and climate change.
  4. Safeguard the lands, territories and resources, and associated customary management and sustainable use systems.
  5. Indigenous and traditional knowledge are distinct and special contributions to 21st century learning and action.

Modern agriculture the best way to feed the world?

December 2, 2012

Global development podcast: farmers, GM crops and agriculture\’s future | Global development | guardian.co.uk

via Global development podcast: farmers, GM crops and agriculture\’s future | Global development | guardian.co.uk.

I stand on the point that modern agriculture styles (commercial farming) are not the best way to help to feed the world. There is a need to start empowering local farmers to grow food in their own community. The problem of access to food is not just a problem in the developing world, it is also becoming a global problem. Food security is causing food insecurity for people in developing countries.

The three pillars of food security;
Food availability: sufficient quantities of food available on a consistent basis.
Food access: having sufficient resources to obtain appropriate foods for a nutritious diet.
Food use: appropriate use based on knowledge of basic nutrition and care, as well as adequate water and sanitation.

Have not had positive impacts on people in developing countries, they have however had a negative impact, because of trade liberalisation. Food does not need to be imported into countries that are able to grow food. Food should not be grown on a mass scale by corporate organisations and then exported to other countries leaving local communities stranded because they cannot afford to buy food, and local farmers not been able to compete with corporate giants.