"I love that you've brought this to attention. An extensive database of uncommon but resistant and hardy plants/foods could be developed and organized by climate. Ease of growth and processing should also be taken in to account. I will try to…"
A crash course in changing the world.
Be careful what you wish for
I always wanted to write this but perhaps this diagram triggered me to finally pen my thoughts here in a separate blog. And thank you Agent Rao for inspiring me to doing so. The graphic illustration has succeeded in communicating the key issue posed by the open ended question that Agent Rao asked at the last line of his post.
Well, clearly there is a priority for rich countries to reduce "per capita carbon emissions". But those of us in the developing world must introspect: "will the end justify the means" is the most important question we need to ask ourselves before we start endorsing something "with urgent optimism" that can have far deeper ramifications for everything that we have built so far. Clearly renewed interest in environmentalism in the west has a lot to do with enlightened self interest to a future course of action.
Having said that, those among us (in the emerging economy) are urged to be fully aware of where our priorities lay and why it is not in our interest to enable developed 'rich' nations (with negative cost competitiveness and large current account deficits) strategically adopt "carbon emission" as an opportunity to redraw their sovereign strategy of thwarting the net cost competitiveness of emerging economies where a lot of manufacturing & services have migrated to in the recent years.
"Globalized" trade and commerce made the world a lot more equal than it ever was and consequently have upset the 'apple cart' of good life for all those who have taken for granted the status-quo that good life is simply a "privilege" of being a citizen of a developed nation. There was a feeling in some quarter of this society that it was unnecessary to work towards any reciprocity of trade and it was okay simply to engage in charitable donations to the poor. So while the resourceful among the poor nations could have possibly made some use of the endowment, a majority of the poor nations squandered this gifted wealth and in most cases, political leaders in poor countries privately prospered from this wealth (which never trickled down to the poor anyway) while donor induced funds influenced long term trade negotiations that unfairly were made to provide market access and cheaper procurement of supplies for MNC corporations. Everybody in the developing world saw this picture and resented it. While some protested, the resourceful ones in the developing nations studied harder, worked harder, learnt languages with a greater zeal and negotiated with a passion and innovated for survival in every sphere of economic activity. And they continue to do so.
At this stage, we need to be careful not to let strategic public relation exercises deployed in rich countries to create public endorsements for trade protectionism (through the following but not limited to visa restrictions, carbon tax, quality assurance regimes) when quantitative trade restrictions under World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations must be phased out. So carbon tax and low carbon economy suits the priority of the G8 but does it serve the purpose of the rest? Poor countries need technology and money to execute their own green missions of food, water, health and energy securities respectively. As any prudent nation would do, any developmental capital expenditure must be borne through internal accrual of the sovereign balance sheet and not through external borrowings. This simply means that economic surpluses borne out of trade and not charity dollars is what emerging countries would need most apart from reciprocity in clean technology transfers.
Well, clearly there is a priority for rich countries to reduce "per capita carbon emissions". But those of us in the developing world must introspect: "will the end justify the means" is the most important question we need to ask ourselves before we start endorsing something "with urgent optimism" that can have far deeper ramifications for everything that we have built so far. Clearly renewed interest in environmentalism in the west has a lot to do with enlightened self interest to a future course of action.
Having said that, those among us (in the emerging economy) are urged to be fully aware of where our priorities lay and why it is not in our interest to enable developed 'rich' nations (with negative cost competitiveness and large current account deficits) strategically adopt "carbon emission" as an opportunity to redraw their sovereign strategy of thwarting the net cost competitiveness of emerging economies where a lot of manufacturing & services have migrated to in the recent years.
"Globalized" trade and commerce made the world a lot more equal than it ever was and consequently have upset the 'apple cart' of good life for all those who have taken for granted the status-quo that good life is simply a "privilege" of being a citizen of a developed nation. There was a feeling in some quarter of this society that it was unnecessary to work towards any reciprocity of trade and it was okay simply to engage in charitable donations to the poor. So while the resourceful among the poor nations could have possibly made some use of the endowment, a majority of the poor nations squandered this gifted wealth and in most cases, political leaders in poor countries privately prospered from this wealth (which never trickled down to the poor anyway) while donor induced funds influenced long term trade negotiations that unfairly were made to provide market access and cheaper procurement of supplies for MNC corporations. Everybody in the developing world saw this picture and resented it. While some protested, the resourceful ones in the developing nations studied harder, worked harder, learnt languages with a greater zeal and negotiated with a passion and innovated for survival in every sphere of economic activity. And they continue to do so.
For the last six decades, rich nations enjoyed almost a 'free run' in global trade where they've been net exporter of goods and services enjoying all the benefits of a "globalized world", amassing trade surpluses (owing to their high valued currencies and through institutional restrictions placed on human mobility as well as intellectual property regulations like patents, trademarks and EMR that ensured that continuity of the status quo). All that is set to change now when political leadership on both sides of the Atlantic is poised to impose "carbon tax" apparently to make manufacturing and service providers in rich nations have a "level playing field". Should I be agree? Of course not. Should I be disappointed? Of course not. The real goal of surviving and succeeding is always "working way through constraints" as Eliyahu Goldratt proposes and Agent Kiyash advocates.
It is only in the last six years (when for the first time), global trade (through manufacturing and services) started to benefit the developing & the under-developed nations as some of the these 'once' underdeveloped nations understood how to leverage the "demographic dividend" (to create cost effective quality manufacturing) and leapfrog into "knowledge economy" to innovate traditional models of delivering services. This new way of doing business seemed to consistently outperform all other ways, making corporations and government departments on both sides of the Atlantic become prosperous but it also gave them an opportunity to make the underdeveloped and the developing nations a part of this shared prosperity.
Former US President George W. Bush and US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice understood that secular functional democracies across the world need to be strengthened and made some of these countries "natural allies" of United States and the G8 group of countries. India has one of them. Through a global trading system, the former US administration tried to make great strides in making the world an inter-connected place where "if you study hard and work hard, you are most likely going to be prosperous". George W Bush wanted to establish rewards for bringing comprehensive changes to Asia, Africa and the Middle East by strengthening bilateral trade with United States, strengthening democracy across the world and rewarding democratic governments like India that were "resourceful". As an Indian, we will always remember with a deep sense of gratitude what the former US President George W. Bush undertook (amidst steep resistance both within and among "those with arm-chair compassion and hollow rhetoric") the first ever initiative to make the world largest democracy (India) finally come out of the "nuclear apartheid" and enabling India to truly make transformational progress in energy security which will be witnessed for generations to come. Effective clean technologies like Nuclear Technology has recently captured the imagination of both private equity and venture capital who are currently deploying private capital to fund "clean tech" visionaries engaged in demystifying nuclear energy for the bottom billions and develop ways and means (through public private partnerships) to fortify secular democratic governments (and not rogue nations) with clean record of non-proliferation.
At this stage, we need to be careful not to let strategic public relation exercises deployed in rich countries to create public endorsements for trade protectionism (through the following but not limited to visa restrictions, carbon tax, quality assurance regimes) when quantitative trade restrictions under World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations must be phased out. So carbon tax and low carbon economy suits the priority of the G8 but does it serve the purpose of the rest? Poor countries need technology and money to execute their own green missions of food, water, health and energy securities respectively. As any prudent nation would do, any developmental capital expenditure must be borne through internal accrual of the sovereign balance sheet and not through external borrowings. This simply means that economic surpluses borne out of trade and not charity dollars is what emerging countries would need most apart from reciprocity in clean technology transfers.
So we really need to understand the developmental priorities before we endorse something we do not fully understand and in our excitement to respond with the urgent optimism, we are most likely falling into a trap of "low carbon opportunism" that can dangerously make trade surpluses of developing and poor countries not just vanish but economically decimated if we cannot understand where our own priorities lie and how much of a good life for us is inextricably linked with market access, human mobility and cost leadership.
This is the clear distinction we must make before it becomes too late to stop 'environmental opportunism' becoming the single most potent, definitive and effective (and universal) ploy to shift the long term competitive advantages from the developing & under-developed countries who seem to be putting their relatively devalued currencies (with respect to $/£/Є) and the demographic dividend (both of which were historically seen as fundamental weakness of poor countries until now) to good use to create a progress footprint. There is an imminent threat to both of them with carbon tax (as proposed by Barrack H Obama and his European counterparts) for all imports (both products and services) coming in from the developing world. We must be careful what we wish for.
Views: 28
-
Comment by Iyamuremye Jean de Dieu on April 18, 2010 at 4:55pm
-
Attention is a sign of knowledge. Great post
-
Comment by Michal Kliger-Spatz on April 18, 2010 at 7:18pm
-
Excellent post
-
Comment by A.V.Koshy on April 18, 2010 at 7:50pm
-
Dear Rahul, I have been, as you know, unsuccesfully trying to explain some of these things to my fellow evokers in a different langauge, that of philosophy and critical theory and literature and art. We are just emerging after many years of struggle into the possibility of becoming a stable and successful economy.
It is only in the last six years (when for the first time), global trade (through manufacturing and services) started to benefit the developing & the under-developed nations as some of the these 'once' underdeveloped nations understood how to leverage the "demographic dividend" (to create cost effective quality manufacturing) and leapfrog into "knowledge economy" to innovate traditional models of delivering services. This new way of doing business seemed to consistently outperform all other ways, making corporations and government departments on both sides of the Atlantic become prosperous but it also gave them an opportunity to make the underdeveloped and the developing nations a part of this shared prosperity.
The knowledge economy, the possibility of trade that leverages the demographic dividend - these things are what the global market wants to take away from us . I may not agree with your political views , but your economic views make sense to me, sound sense.
I would like to say that the idea of a flow from top down and imposition of the same is what can be faulted with all such ideas as the carbon tax and even urgent evoke.
If power was seen as distributed everywhere - now I enter philosophy - this would not happen.
Lynn Caldwell stated once in a comment on one of my posts that there was no guarantee that nations like ours would misuse capitalism and she had a point. What the West got wrong needn't be wrong or go wrong in the East if we adapt it or change the angle of handling the tools of analysis.
What has to be understood is that the days of Us/them with Indians and others being a them with a small 't' is gone simply becasue of the knowledge flow in today's world which is diffcullt to regularize and therefore a threat to any idea of a power structure as it leads to innovation, leveraging and positive competition whereby the attempts to bring back a negativity to our "progress footprint" will not lead to the result it once led to.
Excellent post.
Thanks for saying some things that needed to be said powerfully and clearly.
-
Comment by Kelly on April 19, 2010 at 1:08am
-
I am upvoting this, number one because you are a thoughtful young man who thinks through your points and puts a lot of effort into making them.
I wish I understood this issue more than I do. I will admit to a rudimentary understanding at best. This week is my finals week and so, I will admit, I will not have time to delve as deeply as I would like. I will do so as soon as I am done with finals. Great post, very thoughtful.
-
Comment by Michele Baron on April 19, 2010 at 12:49pm
-
very challenging post, Rahul (good links too). Developmental issues are profound, fiscal issues balanced with justice issues; energy sectors balanced with knowledge capital. If the crux of the problem is communication, willingness to accept that we are all "them" from some perspective, but can all become "us" with an invocation of cooperation/transformation of views, then negativity attached to historic choices can be ameliorated (if not expunged) through communication and work. If the seeds of the problem rest within shortfalls of present technologies, from which will grow the problems of carbon footprint environmental degradation, loss of water and food security, loss of environmental stability, then root solutions must include radical shifts of technological developement.
The past is static, and can only be shaded through broader understanding.
The present is fluid, and can be influenced through informed choices and researched best efforts.
The future is open, and if new energy and production technologies can be given priority of development, the problems attendent upon deepening carbon footprints can be left in the past, on a parallel, but unwalked path. Continuing to use fossil and other non-renewable, high-emission fuels is a path of amortization which can "kill" both the lender and borrower of balances. A shift in currency, in energy, in choices, in access, is needed.
thank you for the post
-
Comment by Linda Holt on April 19, 2010 at 4:03pm
-
The revolutionary ideas that will become the great oaks that hold up global society are the strong saplings today. Let us hope that "the powers that be" will see the deep forest is dependent upon all of these trees.
-
Comment by gverma on April 19, 2010 at 6:53pm
-
excellent!
-
Comment by Benny Faibish on April 22, 2010 at 8:16am
-
well done mate :)
-
-
Good stuff, but it took me awhile to understand what you were saying or to reach the point of what you were saying. I think the penultimate sentence finally told me -- that rich countries would put carbon taxes on imports from developing countries. Will you add parenthetical notes that spell out the acronyms when you write them for people like me that don't know the less obvious ones? Thanks. For the most part I follow you.
I work in government, and I will say that no issue is straight-forward. That doesn't mean there is a right thing and a wrong thing to do, but as long as elected officials run a country (as in a stated democracy) politics plays into what is done. So science isn't enough; economics isn't enough. There seems to always be an overriding currency on political will or political values. It's a bit like a president who is about to sign a trade treaty with China and the Secretary of State runs in and says don't do that because there are human rights abuses. So you (the president) put down your pen, but then your Secretary of Defense comes in and says don't do that because Country B will declare war on an ally if we don't give them what we promise (good A) which we make with imports from Country A. Then the Secretary of Commerce runs in and says to please sign it because there is a slump in textile business in the country and this agreement could make cheaper imports of certain Chinese products used in textiles in the country. Then the USAID administrator runs in and says don't sign it because if you do, China's rival will kill USAID out of the country as a result of being mad that we signed this deal. And on and on. . . .So I've learned it's quite a complicated deal. Of course that doesn't mean that any decision made in that complex web is right or wrong; and many times there is a right thing to do with energy security or climate change or water security and development or infectious diseases. But we have to do more work in just showing what science says or economics says.
So I ask not for criticism on the carbon tax which you have done brilliantly, but for your alternative. Alternatives speak more loudly than "no's" or criticisms. If you have one, it would be great to hear it. Thanks.
And if you have an evokation you're working on, I'd love to join in with you. You have a great understanding of many of the issues and I hope you produce one. You know how to reach me.
-
Comment by Paul Holze on May 2, 2010 at 2:10am
-
It is nice to see so many people thinking about carbon/environmental change and how it would actually play out economically. I appreciate the details you & everyone have supplied in furthering that to shift our use in carbon power would be a power struggle economically and have repercussions that aren't often talked about.
Latest Activity
Fourth of July on the Lake
This past weekend was the annual celebration at the lake house in Connecticut. It is amazing that the lake is still so clear and beautiful after all these years. The watershed association has done a wonderful job protecting these waters from the damaging effects of development.The wood grill was finally ready to cook on, so we didn't miss the propane tank fueled grill anymore. The food actually tasted fresher than in the past and was easy to keep fueled.Dad was very proud of the solar hybrid…See More
Stinging Nettle
In this blog post I will focus on a plant that is abundant in our nature, and which is immensely nutritious. It's of course the Stinging Nettle. Let's start with the chemical constituents of this plant:37 % Non-Nitrogen-Extracts19 - 29 % Ash9 - 21 % Fiber4 % Fat22 % ProteinOnce the leaves are drid, their protein content can reach an astounding 40 %, which is much higher than beef, which even under the best of circ**stances can never exceed 31 % protein. In addition the Stinging Nettle consists…See More
The meal
It is 7'oclock, I was late home from work due to an assignment that i wanted to get ahead on. By the time I get home I am feeling extremley tired and I cannot be bothered to make a proper meal. I walk to the fridge and open it to see what there is for me to eat. All of the out of date foodstuffs have been automaticaly thrown away by the fridge, they will be recycled tomorrow as animal feed or something. I see i have organic local eggs and some local cheese. Foods are vacc** sealded for easy…See More
Future
FutureToday is 2020/1/1. It is just like yesterday. The war is still continuing. It has started since 2010. In 2010, that year was a horrible year. Almost every energy ran out. Every country’s governments were crushed down at the same time. There were riots everywhere. All of the big company’s bosses were killed xdeadx in the riots. Troops fought each other everywhere. Food was bought up xawayx at once. There were no more food supplies in any shops. The economy was all crushed down. All the…See More
public servants
The exchange works directly for state and public workers and servants. It gives them credit in exchange for the amount of public work they contribute to the community. The more constructive they are based off a base rate the more credit they recieve.
© 2024 Created by Alchemy.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Urgent Evoke to add comments!
Join Urgent Evoke