Hi Jo
I never said Lakshmi Mittal was 'our' billionaire, he is quite obviously
one of the rich elites from developing countries, but I agree with most
of the rest of what you say, although I think EcoEquity's position is
quite good, even if it is a little complicated (well, OK then, very
complicated!) but it is supported by Christian Aid
Chris
jo abbess wrote:
>Hi Chris,
>
>Language, language...Lakshmi Mittal is not "our" billionaire. He is HIS OWN billionaire, and for that reason, he won't cooperate unless he is (en)forced to. Neither will any of the "rich elites" in developing countries, as now they've risen above the slums and the dross of the ultra poor, they want to stay in the rich club, high life, Hello! world, and won't spare a penny for any others. Remember, they've EARNED their wealth...
>
>And as for the word "development", well, let's see. That great capitalist project, that WTO and World Bank and IMF sponsored effort to liberalise, privatise, globalise, de-regulate, "reform". Aid is turned into loans, with conditions attached. Trade is advocated, but not on a level playing field.
>
>The so-called Green Revolution turned out to be a temporary gloss, an ultimate dud. The developed world can't even be bothered to raise the 0.7% GNP/GDP for aid, even though it promised to do so. They've only cancelled something like 20% of the bad debt. Call it anything apart from "development". It's the continued plunder of the Global South, actually, it's ANTI-development.
>
>I remember reading an advertisement on the Metro wall in Brussels : the South are 11 times more productive than the North. Basically, all the "development" measures in place just allow the Global North to continue to suck the Global South dry.
>
>While I have some sympathy for EcoEquity's position, they waste a lot of nervous energy on how to categorise nations : is this nation "developing" or "developed" ? And when does a nation cross over the imaginary line ? Like the Annex I and non-Annex I countries debate in Kyoto, this is a dud argument, like arguing over who gets top place at the table.
>
>Under Contraction and Convergence, we argue about who is responsible for taking the lead, play the major part in financing a common future of survival. The obvious answer is the very rich, very developed nations. Everyone has to join in though, with our "common differentiated responsibilities". However, the poorer, least developed nations don't need to make strenuous efforts as they can afford to burn a bit more before they need to take part in the de-Carbonisation, and WE (as a nation, not certain rich individuals who don't care) should really be funding that, eh ?
>
>More fuel for the fire :-
>
>=x=x==x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/26/food.eu
>
>Rich countries once used gunboats to seize food. Now they use trade deals
>
>The world's hungriest are the losers as an old colonialism returns to govern relations between wealthy and poor nations
>
>George Monbiot
>The Guardian,
>Tuesday August 26 2008
>
>In his book Late Victorian Holocausts, Mike Davis tells the story of the famines that sucked the guts out of India in the 1870s. The hunger began when a drought, caused by El Nińo, killed the crops on the Deccan plateau. As starvation bit, the viceroy, Lord Lytton, oversaw the export to England of a record 6.4m hundredweight of wheat. While Lytton lived in imperial splendour and commissioned, among other extravagances, "the most colossal and expensive meal in world history", between 12 million and 29 million people died. Only Stalin manufactured a comparable hunger.
>
>Now a new Lord Lytton is seeking to engineer another brutal food grab. As Tony Blair's favoured courtier, Peter Mandelson often created the impression that he would do anything to please his master. Today he is the European trade commissioner. From his sumptuous offices in Brussels and Strasbourg, he hopes to impose a treaty that will permit Europe to snatch food from the mouths of some of the world's poorest people.
>
>Seventy per cent of the protein eaten by the people of Senegal comes from fish. Traditionally cheaper than other animal products, it sustains a population that ranks close to the bottom of the human development index. One in six of the working population is employed in the fishing industry; about two-thirds of these workers are women. Over the past three decades, their means of subsistence has started to collapse as other nations have plundered Senegal's stocks.
>
>The EU has two big fish problems. One is that, partly as a result of its failure to manage them properly, its own fisheries can no longer meet European demand. The other is that its governments won't confront their fishing lobbies and decommission all the surplus boats. The EU has tried to solve both problems by sending its fishermen to west Africa. Since 1979 it has struck agreements with the government of Senegal, granting our fleets access to its waters. As a result, Senegal's marine ecosystem has started to go the same way as ours. Between 1994 and 2005, the weight of fish taken from the country's waters fell from 95,000 tonnes to 45,000 tonnes. Muscled out by European trawlers, the indigenous fishery is crumpling: the number of boats run by local people has fallen by 48% since 1997.
>
>In a recent report on this pillage, ActionAid shows that fishing families that once ate three times a day are now eating only once or twice. As the price of fish rises, their customers also go hungry. The same thing has happened in all the west African countries with which the EU has maintained fisheries agreements. In return for wretched amounts of foreign exchange, their primary source of protein has been looted.
>
>...
>
>=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/aug/27/terrorism.alqaida
>
>Letters
>
>The new strategy against al-Qaida - broadcast lies loud and often
>
>The Guardian,
>Wednesday August 27 2008
>
>"The al-Qaida brand"? "The AQ-related narrative" (Britain's secret propaganda war against al-Qaida, August 26)? What next? How about Team AQ - a sports initiative to channel those "grievances" into winning more medals at the next Olympics? It's a sad reflection of how far the official "narrative" has distanced itself from any understanding of what constitutes an ideology. Terrorism and al-Qaida do not - the former is a propaganda tactic of desperation and the latter a blanket term applied to users of this tactic against western interests.
>
>Any organisation serious about undermining the appeal of Islamism to people whose desperation is rooted in the hopelessness of grinding poverty and the suppression of all legitimate, nonviolent outlets for redress by dictatorial indigenous governments or foreign occupying powers should look to the lack of any viable, concrete, social or economic programmes put forward by any of the Islamist movements worldwide.
>
>But to highlight these issues as part of a hearts and minds psy-ops initiative begs the question of what answers the west has to offer. The recent proliferation of US-sponsored neoliberal makeovers masquerading as democracy and brutal, asset-stripping occupations masquerading as humanitarian interventions have only served to exacerbate the causes of the grinding poverty and hopelessness from which "AQ" recruits, so the spooks are unlikely to want to go there.
>
>I suppose there's nothing for it but to carry on broadcasting lies loud and often enough, through tame media outlets, until they become accepted as "truths" - WMD in Iraq, the responsibility of the Palestinians for the loss of their country, Russian responsibility for starting the spat with Georgia, to name only three precedents.
>N Graham
>Brighton, East Sussex
>
>=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=
>
>jo.
>+44 77 17 22 13 96
>http://www.changecollege.org.uk
>
>
>
>
>>Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 07:46:12 +0100
>>From: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: G77 and China call for GNP donation to fight climate change
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>
>>I think the rich elites in some of these developing countries could be
>>expected to cough up, as well as our own billionaires. Lakshmi Mittal,
>>the world's fourth richest man, is worth $45 bn.
>>
>>Which is why I like the Greenhouse Development Rights of Tom Athanasiou
>>and Paul Baer of the EcoEquity organisation. See www.ecoequity.org They
>>work out in country's responsibility for emissions, since 1990, when
>>they say we all knew about global warming (they think it's wrong to make
>>someone responsible for something done in ignorance), and also its
>>capacity to pay, based on the earnings of people above $8500 per year
>>(below that income people should not have to contribute). This is
>>supported by Christian Aid. Tom and Paul once supported Contraction and
>>Convergence, and their book, Dead Heat (short and very readable) was a
>>staunch defence of that. They have now decided to calculate a country's
>>contribution differently, giving more money to developing countries,
>>hence GDRs.
>>
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>jo abbess wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hi Chris Keene and CRISIS FORUM,
>>>
>>>The "private sector" is expected to cough up to help with M&A (not Mergers and Acquisitions, but Mitigation and Adaptation) or the Developing Countries, according to the World Bank.
>>>
>>>Some confusion therefore.
>>>
>>>Also, would Chindia be classed as "Developing" ? And what about the fact that "Developing" countries are not actually developing currently ? What about the uncleared debt ? Failing crops ? Imposed "economic reform" ?
>>>
>>>And also : surely the real issue is the de-Carbonisation of the already developed world ? And how much will THAT cost ?
>>>
>>>=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=
>>>
>>>http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-08/27/content_9724227.htm
>>>
>>>World Bank says developing nations need $170 bln to mitigate climate change
>>>www.chinaview.cn 2008-08-27 21:34:50
>>>
>>>LAGOS, Aug. 27 (Xinhua) -- The World Bank on Tuesday at the ongoing Accra Climate Change Talks in Ghana has said a total of 170 billion U.S dollars was required between now and 2030 to enable developing countries mitigate and adapt to the impact of climate change, according to the official News Agency of Nigeria on Wednesday.
>>>
>>>Eduardo Dopazo, World Bank fund manager of Carbon Finance Unit told newsmen at the sidelines of the Accra Talks that the private sector was expected to account for 80 percent of the sum.
>>>
>>>He said the huge financing gap for developing countries to contain the impact of climate change is beyond current funding under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
>>>
>>>According to him, developing countries will also require 85 billion U.S dollars to provide electricity that would cover 100 percent of their citizens by 2030, and that an additional 35 billion U.S dollars per year is require to ensure that the electricity utilize green energy technologies.
>>>
>>>Dopazo said within the same period, developing countries will require massive technology transfer, capacity building and technical assistant to manage whatever green technology is adopted.
>>>
>>>He said the situation would require that developing countries take commitments under the post Kyoto protocol treaty expected to be ratified at Copenhagen in 2009.
>>>
>>>...
>>>
>>>=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=
>>>
>>>jo.
>>>+44 77 17 22 13 96
>>>http://www.changecollege.org.uk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:38:56 +0100
>>>>From: [log in to unmask]
>>>>Subject: G77 and China call for GNP donation to fight climate change
>>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>
>>>>*G77 and China call for GNP donation to fight climate change*
>>>>China, India and over 100 developing countries have called on the
>>>>world’s rich countries to donate somewhere between 0.5 and 1 per cent
>>>>of their gross national product (GNP) to help them mitigate greenhouse
>>>>gas emissions and adapt to climate change.
>>>>http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.963071
>>>>
>>>>My first thought on this was what an incredibly small amount.
>>>>
>>>>Then I realised that if the aid were given in the form of alternative
>>>>technology it would mean that the developing countries would be able to
>>>>develop without using fossil fuels, and the economies of scale in
>>>>renewable energy, to say nothing of increased effort in R&D, would make
>>>>renewables cheaper for all of us., So ordinary people in the North would
>>>>be better off through not having to pay inflated bills for fossil fuels
>>>>
>>>>But then I realised the elites in the developed world don't want this to
>>>>happen - they are in the pockets of vested interests, so is this
>>>>something ordinary people should campaign for?
>>>>
>>>>Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>Win New York holidays with Kellogg’s & Live Search
>>>http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/107571440/direct/01/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Make a mini you on Windows Live Messenger!
>http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/107571437/direct/01/
>
>
|
