Climate Change, and the mystery of the lost nations

Climate change.  It’s been a source of cogitation in the scientific world for some years now, spurring a cacophony of media hype and ongoing debate in global politics.  Though there is little unanimity about its causes and effects, the ‘greenhouse effect’ is broadly accepted to arise from human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, which over time have altered the chemical composition of our atmosphere.  The environmental, social and economic impacts have been widely researched, and are already manifesting themselves in some corners of the world; a reality that spawns intriguing questions about the implications of climate change in international law.  

 

Global climate change negotiations have endured for years, in the attempt to reach agreement on the need to act, and to resolve a plan by which to do so.  It was at the most recent talks in Cancun, Mexico, in December (CoP-16) that the plight of small island states was brought into stark relief.

Image courtesy of www.coastalcare.org

The islands of the Pacific Ocean, including the low-lying atolls of the Marshall Islands, Tuvalu and Kiribati among others, have begun to witness first-hand the signs of climate change-induced sea level rise.  All three island groups have experienced severe flooding by storms and high tides, and saltwater intrusion into wells and soils is threatening livelihoods and health.  Encroaching seas are eroding the atolls at faster rates than predicted.  In the state of Kiribati, two islands – Tebua Tarawa and Abanuea - have already disappeared beneath rising seas.  The South Pacific Regional Environment Programme confirms that others are at risk.  In the Indian Ocean, the beaches of the Maldives are also being swept away.

Sea level rise occurred at an average rate of 1.8mm per year during the past century.  Predictions for the current century anticipate a total rise between 90 and 880mm, the upper limits of which would overwhelm a large proportion of the coral atolls.  What will happen if entire populations are forced to abandon their homelands?  Where would they go, and who would they become?  Would they still be ‘nations’, albeit disenfranchised?  Would they still have a unified voice in international politics, and rights to their natural resources?

We’re facing a set of issues unique in the history of the system of nation-states.  We’re confronting existential issues associated with climate impacts that are not adequately addressed in the international legal framework.”   Dean Bialek, Adviser to the Republic of the Marshall Islands (in interview with The Associated Press)

While nations have declined through secession, conquest, or by ceding their territory to other countries, never in history has a country physically disappeared, and the law is not prepared to deal with such a scenario.  The 1951 United Nations’ Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which asserts that nations must shelter those fleeing from persecution, does not cover the situation of those whose homeland is lost to the sea.  Likewise, the continued recognition of a displaced state as a legal entity seems open to the interpretation and tolerance of the international community; most significantly, whether the United Nations General Assembly would opt to relinquish their seat at the table.

Economic rights are likewise in question.  Take, for example, the Marshall Islands’ 29 atolls, which give them an economic zone of 800,000 square miles of ocean, from which natural resources may be gathered exclusively by the Marshallese community or others to whom licenses are sold.  If the islands are submerged, what becomes of their rights to resources and fishing – the foundations of their national economy?

Small island states contribute only 0.6 per cent of all global warming pollution, but they are already suffering disproportionately the impacts of a changing climate.  In Cancun, representatives from the Marshall Islands sought international aid for climate change adaptation, to re-plant protective shoreline vegetation; construct a 3-mile sea wall to protect the capital city, Majuro; and to guard the causeway linking Jaluit island to its airport from continued inundation by the sea.  Without such measures, the islands may become uninhabitable long before they are submerged.  If financial and diplomatic tools are unsuccessful, there is speculation that some countries will move for legal measures, including appeals to the International Court of Justice for compensation from the world’s leading polluters.  But how to put a price on a lost homeland, devastated livelihoods, a diluted cultural identity, and an uncertain future?

These are questions somewhat removed from the international negotiations on mitigation and emissions reductions, but equally as fundamental.  Even if the world were to curb its emissions of greenhouse gases overnight, the impacts of past excesses could not be entirely avoided and the fate of the small island nations would continue to hang in the balance.  This realisation must be the most real and urgent call to action on climate change adaptation yet?

Indicators of Wealth vs. Metrics of Progress

The tenth Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (COP-10) met in Japan last week to debate the ongoing friction between declining global biodiversity and economic development.  Amongst an extensive list of (somewhat hazy) outcomes featured a compelling new challenge to recognised measurements of economic development, as the World Bank emerged as the latest contester of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as a proxy for economic progress.

GDP measures a country’s annual economic output; the value of all goods and services made within national borders during a year.  This economic measure has long been adopted as an indicator of a nation’s quality of life, on the assumption that the benefits of high national output are shared equally among citizens, leading to increased personal incomes and improved standards of living.  But the flaws in this theory are increasingly recognised.  Not only does it overlook the fact that national economic activity and personal income can be completely decoupled (see individual earnings in the United States between 1990 and 2006, compared with GDP), it also fails to consider the negative externalities that arise alongside economic growth.  Externalities may include, among other things, environmental degradation, erosion of natural resources, social inequities and poor human development, which can threaten the quality of life within any context of economic growth.  By neglecting the ‘bads’ associated with higher production, GDP overstates the true economic wellbeing of a country and its citizens.  Indeed, Simon Kuznets, the architect of GDP, noted in his first report to Congress (1934) that

the welfare of a nation [can] scarcely be inferred from a measure of national income.”

Image courtesy of http://web.worldbank.org/

Theorists and critics the world over have put forward alternative indicators thought to better reflect a country’s prosperity.  Challenges have emanated from international organisations (the United Nations gave us the Human Development Index as a combined measure of GDP, life expectancy and education); the non-profit sector (see the World Wide Fund for Nature’s Living Planet Index, and the New Economics Foundation’s Happy Planet Index); as well as from national governments.  In 2008, the government of Bhutan adopted Gross National Happiness (GNH) as its mechanism for monitoring national progress in terms of human wellbeing.  In a more high profile attack on GDP prior to the 2009 G-20 Summit, President Sarkozy of France called for a “revolution” against financial statistics, to acknowledge the wider influences on a nation’s wellbeing.  Sarkozy’s Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress is mandated to explore a more appropriate metric for ‘progress’, under the leadership of eminent economists Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen and Jean-Paul Fitoussi.

It is against this commotion that the latest proposition emerged in Japan last week, as the World Bank stood up in agreement that “our failure to properly value ecosystems” has led to the alarming decline of global biodiversity.  Picking up the conclusions of a United Nations’ study on The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), the Bank announced a new global partnership to integrate the economic benefits of ecosystems into national accounts.  “The natural wealth of nations should be a capital asset valued in combination with its financial capital, manufactured capital, and human capital”, said the Bank’s President, Robert Zoellick.  By factoring the cost of environmental degradation into economic calculations, it is anticipated that the development trajectory of nations would be set on a more sustainable course.

This is tantalising talk, and with the World Bank at its roots, perhaps this sapling initiative has the potential to bear fruit across a broader geography than others have achieved.  But how will governments really take to the notion of a new metric, which rebalances the books to revise the sum of national accounts downwards?  Call me a pessimist, but it seems to me that GDP is so engrained into the modern economic psyche, that no more holistic metric could possibly take precedence.  To do so would need a radical overhaul of accepted wisdom, and a whole host of more enlightened political leaders.  And what is more, even if the World Bank’s initiative does win political appeal, will we ever achieve a metric that accounts for all things and all people?  What place for the social indicators that others have espoused?  Is there any metric comprehensive enough to provide the full picture of truly sustainable development?

Cuba’s prescription for medical success

A Socialist Republic since 1976, Cuba has proved itself something of an enigma on the international stage.  Demonstrating vehement independence in the face of intense socio-economic pressures during the past 50 years, the country has seen hundreds of thousands of its citizens emigrate to the USA, Europe and Mexico among others.  An unfamiliar political system, at times violent revolutionary history, secretive militarism and a dubious human rights record have tainted foreign relations with the European Union and USA until their respective slates were wiped clean in 2008 and 2009.

But amid this chequered past are snapshots of equity, justice and equality of opportunity such as only a Socialist system could offer.  In the United Nations’ Human Development Index, Cuba ranks a respectable 51 out of 182 states, reflecting the country’s strength in securing human wellbeing.  Cuba boasts a long average life expectancy from birth (78.5 years); an adult literacy rate (99.8 per cent) second only in the world to Georgia (100.0 per cent); and combined gross enrollment in primary, secondary and tertiary education of 100.8 per cent.  While GDP per capita ranks 95th out of 181 countries at US$6,876 (Purchasing Power Parity), Cuba’s Human Poverty Index is the 17th lowest among 135 countries.

Such high standards of living and commitment to human development rival even those countries with the highest GDP and (purportedly) life opportunities.  As a point of comparison, take the availability of medical schooling and qualification to society at large.

Despite recognised shortages of medical practitioners in industralised nations such as the USA and UK, and the public health risks that this shortage threatens, the costs of medical training prove an obstacle to many eager entrants to the profession.  In the USA, the average tuition fee for a first year medical student totals US$25,000.  After four years of study, a graduate doctor is liable for around US$100,000 in teaching costs alone, excluding subsistence and other expenses.  Studying in the UK may offer a less costly alternative, but nevertheless the British Medical Association (BMA) estimates that graduates here emerge with debts of up to £46,000 or more.  Justifiably, the BMA is concerned that the profession is rapidly becoming the domain of the privileged and the wealthy.  According to The Guardian, in 2008 only four per cent of medical students in the UK originated from the two lowest socio-economic groups.

Not so in Cuba.  Cuba’s wealth may not be comparable with those of its most industrialised counterparts, but, when Fidel Castro came to power in 1959, his Socialist government embarked on the construction of a health system to benefit all in society.  Around ten per cent of annual government spending is said to be allocated to health.  With its emphasis on primary care – health education and prevention – Cuba’s approach has met with global admiration.  And the country’s commitment is epitomised above all by its provision of free medical training to low income and minority students from all over the world.

Operated by the Cuban government, the Latin American School of Medicine (Escuela Latinoamericana de Medicina, ELAM) was established in 1999.  By 2006, ELAM’s courses were attended by approximately 10,000 students of 29 nationalities.  While those from outside Cuba are predominantly of Latin American, Caribbean and African origin, students from disadvantaged backgrounds in the United States have also been admitted since 2001.  The six year programme closely replicates the US course of medical training, with additional emphasis on primary health, community medicine and hands-on internship experiences.  The scholarship covers the cost of all tuition, accommodation, textbooks (in Spanish) and meals, and a small monthly stipend is also available to students.  The only proviso is that, upon graduating, students should return to their home countries to provide low cost medical care to deprived communities.

ELAM was born of Cuba’s humanitarian and development aid response to the catastrophes of Hurricanes Georges and Mitch in 1998 (the Integral Health Plan for Central America and the Caribbean).  For the following ten years, the Cuban government offered 500 full medical scholarships per year to students from the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Honduras, and Nicaragua – countries seriously affected by the tropical storms.  In 1999, Castro officially inaugurated ELAM at the 9th Ibero-American Summit.

It was the Greek philosopher, Plato, who conceived the notion that “necessity is the mother of invention”.  In highlighting the extreme necessity for healthcare services in deprived areas of the Caribbean, the disastrous hurricanes of 1998 have brought an exemplary invention to the world: medical training of the highest standards, provided free to those with the drive and commitment to succeed.  Though often overlooked in the international arena, it’s possible that Cuba’s prescription for health and education could remedy the growing inequities in the equivalent systems of industrialised nations.

Temporary laws: precaution, constitution, indecision, confusion?

Recent times have seen a flurry of moves by governments to pass ”temporary laws” in relation to certain topical issues.  First came South Africa’s plans last year to temporarily legalise prostitution for the duration of the 2010 FIFA World Cup, to the outrage of many within and without the host nation.  Earlier this month, President Obama joined the trend with his announcement of a six-month moratorium on deep water oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, although this was later blocked by a federal court judge.  And most recently, the UK Government introduced changes to drug laws such as would bring into effect temporary bans on so-called “legal highs” for the course of the summer music festivals.

Where has this trend come from?  Is it a case of increased cause to adopt the precautionary principle, or a case of weaknesses in our constitution which inhibit governments from passing permanent laws within the timescales needed?  And in either scenario, what signal does it communicate to society?

The precautionary principle embodies a doctrine of German administrative law, which encourages recognition of “prior worry or care” in the adoption of legal measures.  Implementation of the precautionary principle infers that, where there is just cause to question the effect of a substance or activity for people or the environment, there is no need to wait for conclusive scientific evidence before preventive action is taken.  This response to risk has met with widespread criticism and its legitimacy as a legal instrument has been intensely debated, not least in its application by the European Union with respect to genetically modified organisms (GMOs).  But the need to act in cases where the facts are uncertain presents enormous challenges for risk regulators.  In the case of UK drug law, the Government will not permanently ban a substance until full advice is available from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, yet ad hoc cases of ill-health present reasons to doubt the safety of certain “legal highs”.  Likewise, current events in the Gulf of Mexico lead President Obama to question the environmental integrity of deep sea drilling.  While robust scientific evidence is sought on these topics, both governments have opted for temporary laws as a precautionary measure to protect people and the environment respectively.

The South African proposal on prostitution may likewise be seen as a precautionary approach, although manifested in a different way.  Rather than encouraging a ban as a protective measure, South Africa sought to legalise prostitution in order that safe spaces could be created where women would be protected from violence, abuse and arrest, and where condoms would be supplied to control the spread of HIV.  It was anticipated that the risks to women would be inexorably higher during the influx of visitors to South Africa for the World Cup, and a temporary legalisation could provide an effective approach to risk management.  Despite gaining the support of advocacy groups and charities working with women in the sex trade, the general disapproval associated with the proposals led to their eventual abandonment.

The reasoning for precautionary measures in each of these cases seems robust to the objective eye.  But does the need for temporary measures simultaneously suggest weaknesses in the constitutional system?  Is it possible that the process of temporary law making simply enables a government to bypass the formal (and, usually, lengthy) process of passing legislation, in order to push through their long-term objectives “under the radar” while supporting evidence is sought and constitutional procedures are fulfilled in the background?  And if so, where governments are sufficiently concerned about an issue, should there be a mechanism through which they can take assertive action without the need for somewhat flimsy ”temporary laws”?

Because let’s face it, what exactly is a “temporary law”, and what signals does it send to the public?  A population selects a government in order to set the strategic direction and appropriate parameters in which society should operate.  We place our faith in that government to make the right decisions.  Surely, temporary legislation must undermine the legitimacy of a government in deciding what is best for its country?  In my view, it suggests a government that does not have the power of its conviction and that is uncertain about its own policy position.  It sends confused messages to the public about what is safe and what is not, what they may do and what they may not, and when.  Where a temporary law is ill-explained and directly affects the free will of people, it has elements of the “nanny state”, verging even on Orwell’s “big brother”.  In this case, it seems to me that the introduction of temporary measures is more likely to meet with incredulity and disrespect from the general public than a more decisive legislative instrument, and is less likely to have the desired impact.

Which leads me to question, are “temporary laws” a satisfactory form of governance?  How does the element of risk management balance against the flimsy constitutional status and confused public messaging?  Discuss.

Diablogue #1, Part 4: BP – impacts are rife, but what about opportunities?

In Part 3 of this, our first diablogue, Jill Damatac interpreted the responsibility apportioned to each stakeholder in the Deepwater Horizon disaster: for BP, the formidable environmental clean-up; for other major oil companies, their expertise and technical capacity to support the task; and for the Government, regulatory oversight and quality control.  A reasoned approach to the tangible impacts of the crisis, allocating to each party the duties that they (should) know best.  Now, we sit back and watch the generations pass before environmental conditions in the Gulf of Mexico are restored to their previous levels.  Sorted (she says, with skepticism).

My (other) concern with the agreed division of responsibility is its dismissal of the intangible implications of the spill, including the economic impacts on industries and communities surrounding the Gulf, not to mention the impacts on the energy industry itself (the long-term effects have been likened to those of Three Mile Island), the potential setbacks to US energy policy, and the possible damage to political relations between the USA and UK.  Who will take responsibility for managing these elements of the disaster, and how? 

But these are questions for another day.  This article is focused not on the impacts, but on the opportunities arising from BP’s blunder.  And yes, there are indeed opportunities.  Let us consider.

As the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, notoriously stated in the midst of the USA’s burgeoning financial downturn in November 2008,

You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.

Bizarre as this statement seemed, Emanuel explained his rationale that crises provide opportunities to realise and achieve things that may not have been achieved before.  I could not agree more.  Catastrophic as global disasters are, it is so frequently the grim realisation of actual risk that stimulates the type of action and innovation desperately needed, but ignored in the day to day context of ignorance and denial.  Take, for example, the scientific evidence gained in the 1980s that human activity was systematically destroying the ozone layer (see Farman et al., Nature Vol. 315, May 1985).  This shock finding led quickly to the adoption of the Montreal Protocol (1987), an international agreement which, if adhered to, should enable the full recovery of the ozone layer by 2050.  In similar vein, the incredible potential of nuclear fission to generate clean energy became apparent as a direct result of the development of the atomic bomb, in the face of mid-20th century global warfare.

So what opportunities can we realise from this current disaster?

Firstly, I suggest new environmental innovation and the development of the green technology market.  When the BBC website asked readers to submit their ideas on how the oil spill should have been stopped, the site was deluged with responses.  In capturing the attention of the global populace, Deepwater Horizon has also captured the imagination of innovators and would-be inventors worldwide.  And this is just the informal research and development sector.  The proximity of the disaster to the intellectual might of the USA could bring a stimulus for the growth of industries and venture capitalists focused on green technologies.  The United States has long been criticised for its slow acceptance of all things environmental, but recent events may bring home the need for pro-activity and preparedness to respond to environmental risk, and the economic opportunities in doing so.  BP’s inability to respond effectively to the causes and consequences of the spill has demonstrated the gap in the market.  The New York Times has evidenced the poor progress in developing clean-up technologies since the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster.  Entrepreneurs are surely standing in the wings ready to pounce on the next technological breakthrough?

Offshore wind turbines

Secondly, the disaster places new impetus on the US Government to address its ailing environmental regulations.  As Zygmunt J.B. Plater, a law professor at Boston College, remarked in the New York Times, the spill in the Gulf may become a “wake-up call” for environmental causes across the board.  The United States has historically lagged behind many nations on environmental policy.  International treaties have been signed in abundance in a gesture of lip service, but rarely ratified.  See, for example, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity; the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants; and the Kyoto Protocol, signed by President Clinton, but rejected by President George W. Bush in 2001.  We may now at last see the advancement of the US approach to environmental management.  Environmental groups are predicting a new awareness of wetlands, biodiversity and water quality, while President Obama’s Oval Office address last week stressed the need to end the US “addiction” to fossil fuels.  Obama called on the Senate to pass an Energy Bill that would diversify energy supplies towards cleaner generation.  Tightening of environmental regulations imposed on industry has also been cited.  We see here an opportunity not only to advance the baseline mechanisms for environmental protection in the USA, but also to take enormous steps forward for international environmental policy if the US lends its support.

Mr. Obama’s push to diversify energy supplies leads me to my final window of opportunity.  It has already been suggested that a shift towards new forms of energy may need an additional 500,000 engineers worldwide to satisfy its needs during the next two decades.  The events at Deepwater Horizon lend further importance to the necessity of encouraging the brightest talent into an industry characterised by risk.   The ongoing need to address energy security concerns in an environmentally acceptable way, acts as a metaphorical sponge soaking up skilled professionals into a dynamic and endlessly vibrant economic sector.  Investment is likely to be ploughed into complex facilities such as nuclear power stations, offshore wind farms, tidal power, and upgrading energy infrastructure on a vast scale.  This provides extensive opportunities for firms and individuals with advanced technical skills and the ability to work in highly regulated environments.  It is already anticipated that the oil and gas industry alone will increase its graduate recruitment by 50 per cent next year to cope with global demands for expert engineering services.  Here we see surefire evidence of an industry with a flourishing future, and the opportunity for skilling and re-skilling to meet rigorous professional criteria; an overwhelmingly positive story in the current economic climate, and one which incidents in the Gulf serve only to drive forwards.

Now all we need is an additional division of responsibility to ensure that the opportunities are pursued with similar rigour, and simultaneously with the management of impacts.  Over to you, Mr. Obama.

 

 

Diablogue #1, Part 3: BP Clean-up now on Spin Cycle

As the crisis continues to unfold in the Gulf of Mexico, Jill Damatac progresses our diablogue by asking “who’s responsible for what in the scramble to stem the havoc wreaked by the BP oil catastrophe”?  As politicians, oil companies, the media and the public cast about for someone to blame, Jill navigates us through the endless mud-slinging to determine with whom the accountability should ultimately lie.

23 June 2010 | The Owl’s Post

The figurative buck continues to be passed in a circle of irresponsibility as the BP oil disaster spreads and deepens.  While certain tasks and measures of oversight fall under the federal government’s jurisdiction, it would be a grave mistake for the press—and the public—to contract a sort of amnesia (however unintentionally) when it comes to pinpointing who is ultimately to blame.  In this instance, that blame falls squarely and clearly upon BP.

Who’s left to hold the bag:  BP, or the U.S. government?

Click here to explore this question at The Owl’s Post >>

At this stage, with the gusher projected to continue until August or so, the attempts at clean-up spin cycle—the blame game—can only exacerbate matters.  The oceanic depth at which the accident occurred guarantees that this is no regular spill (contrary to BP’s Tony Hayward, who insists that “Oil floats!”), since the tremendous pressure wielded by the ocean at such depths—1500 meters, or 5000 feet—essentially prevents the oil from rising by forcing its disintegration into microdroplets which are then carried and spread by ocean currents as underwater plumes.  Sharon Begley writes in Newsweek’s June 6 issue that the added dispersants—meant to break up slicks on the surface—cause the spill to further “undergo an ugly alchemy” whilst deep underwater, only serving to magnify and worsen the effect already created by the great depths and its consequential pressure.  This ‘plume effect’ is significant in that the spill will not only affect surface creatures and ecologies but also those at various underwater depths.

In short, we now know what’s happened, what’s happening, who’s responsible for what, who needs to do what when, and how it ought to be done.  As the situation stands currently, the environmental impacts multiply by the minute, and the disaster’s economic effects increase by the day.  Rather than more fully focus on solutions that will provide these two immensely affected sectors some relief and lessen further future effects, the spin cycle—fueled by useless media huffing-and-puffing over the emotional levels of the President’s response, say, or by Congressional hearings that only provide a circus-stage for corporate and political finger-pointing —oscillates onward, stubbornly concerning itself solely with what got us into this mess in the first place:  vacuous human self-centeredness.

Life’s Great Riches

Life may be seen through many windows, none of them necessarily clear or opaque, less or more distorting than any of the others.”     Isaiah Berlin, 1949.

Never have Berlin’s words resonated as loudly as they do today.  In the 21st century we live in a global community, comprising members from widely differing cultural backgrounds.  The modern world is one in which borders have been dissolved to liberalise the movement of goods, knowledge and people in greater volumes, at faster rates and across distances more expansive than once thought possible.

But migration is no phenomenon of modernity.  Throughout history, explorers from Vasco da Gama to James Cook, and civilisations including the Ottomans and Romans, departed their homelands to seek new opportunities in distant lands.  The multicultural society we live in today is founded upon millennia of mass movements, combining ethnic and cultural identities within what we have come to recognise as “nations” defined by geographically delineated sovereign states.

Contrary to currently perceived wisdom, a “nation” does not describe a group of people with a single cultural identity.  In the UK alone the country’s “national” heritage is influenced by Romans, Vikings, Saxons, Celts and Normans, blended into not one, but four modern day nations of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England.  The populations of Australia and the USA are built almost entirely by patterns of immigration that continue to this day; in the 2006 census, the Australian population claimed a total of 30 national identities to describe its ancestry.   Nations have never been ”one” people, and so much the better for our diversity.  Migration has given us multiculturalism.  It has given us individuality, unique characteristics and perspectives, folklore, beliefs and traditions.  Migration has given us a vibrant, dynamic society within which cultures co-exist based on shared values.

Source: www.bbc.co.uk/news

It’s true that the rate of migration has gained momentum during more recent history, and the degree of cultural mixing has upped its pace concurrently.  The Jewish diaspora dispersed globally as a consequence of World War II, while migration towards Europe from South Asian, African and Caribbean states increased significantly in the post-war years.  But this is not to say that the value of multiculturalism has been diluted.  Britain’s “national” dish – the Balti - was introduced by migrants from South Asia and popularised during the 1980s and ’90s to become one of the country’s most frequently eaten foods.  In entertainment, the film industry has broadened its horizons as Bollywood rises up to rival the flashing lights of Hollywood.  The annual Notting Hill Carnival in London lights up the city’s streets with an explosion of Caribbean colour, food, music and dance.

In the USA, people of Hispanic origin comprised 15 per cent of the total population in 2008, forming the second largest Hispanic population in the world.  Only this week the BBC reported the easy bilingualism of Hispanic children living in the United States, who “very often switch between languages within a single sentence, or borrow English words and put them into Spanish, making a hybrid known as Spanglish“.  This is a skill achieved only through intensive exposure to other cultures, and will expand the future opportunities of these children in a globalised world.  Such examples give credence to Kenan Malik’s words in The Guardian, that “the experience of living in a society transformed by mass immigration, a society that is less insular, more vibrant and more cosmopolitan, is positive”.

Nevertheless, so often the world’s history of migration, the multicultural foundation of nations and the vibrancy that this offers are forgotten in the great hubbub of voices stigmatising “immigration” as a threat to so-called ”national” identities.  The volume of debate currently playing out around the world over immigration policy is startling.  In 2010 this topic has been fundamental to national election campaigns in the UK and Netherlands, as well as the American primaries.  Radical policy proposals are coming forth from all levels of government.  Take, for example, the widely condemned law adopted in the US state of Arizona in April, which makes failure to carry immigration documents a criminal act and gives police the power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally; a hostile response to immigration in a state whose population is 30 per cent Hispanic in origin.  Taking this controversial approach still further, the state is now proposing to deny US birth certificates to Arizona-born children of illegal immigrants.  Meanwhile in Europe, a Belgian parliamentary committee recently voted to ban the niqab and the burka – veils covering the faces of Islamic women – from being worn in public; a step towards establishing universal societal norms.

But given our ancestry and heritage, anchored in millennia of migration and cross-cultural exchange, why this sudden backlash?  Why this desire to turn the tide?  People move.  They always have done.  They always will, in spite of political moves to halt the trend.  A lot of good has come from our movement.  We’re better educated and more aware of other cultures and nationalities than ever before, due to our substantially increased exposure in personal relationships and through the media.  But the political culture of fear which has begun to pervade every dimension of society is leading us to lose our appreciation of all that is positive about heterogeneity.  If politics has its way, how far may our community identities be homogenised in the coming generations?

As Malik states:

The irony of multiculturalism as a political process is that it undermines much of what is valuable about diversity as lived experience.  When we talk about diversity, what we mean is that the world is a messy place, full of clashes and conflicts. That’s all for the good, for such clashes and conflicts are the stuff of political and cultural engagement.”              Kenan Malik, The Guardian.

Diablogue #1, Part 2 : BP – not drowning, but waving?

In the first instalment of our Diablogue with The Owl’s Post (06 June), Jill Damatac posed two pertinent questions for the future of BP: will the firm be properly punished and held accountable for their egregious record of irresponsibility and greed?  Or will they, as in their past “accidents”, skate by with a relative slap on the wrist? 

Here, we interrogate these questions further, asking whether the current political, social and financial rebound against BP can have any real or long-term impact on a seemingly impregnable economic powerhouse.

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

45 days on from the explosion at BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig the devastation continues on an unprecedented scale, defined by White House Energy Advisor Carol Browner as the “worst US eco-disaster”.

As anger mounts around the world, President Obama has spoken publicly  in a television interview with NBC, vehemently criticising BP’s Chief Executive Tony Hayward for his ill-advised comments that “I want my life back” and that “the environmental impact of this disaster is likely to be very, very modest”.  Mr. Obama’s response: “He wouldn’t be working for me after any of those statements”.  Following a similar vein, a number of media commentators have called for Mr. Hayward’s resignation.

BP’s PR machine roars into action to mitigate the reputational damage threatening the company.  Their defences must be strengthened in every direction.  Through online and social media, the public has engaged with this crisis to a level rarely seen before.  A Facebook group dedicated to “Boycott BP” is gaining more than 30,000 subscribers each day and already boasts a membership of 350,000.   An underwater webcam beams images over the internet to hundreds of thousands of viewers worldwide, depicting the broken pipe spilling oil into the sea.  One Florida resident has launched a one-man campaign via YouTube to raise consumer pressure, on the premise that by boycotting the pumps customers can force down BP’s fuel prices and effect real damage to the firm’s bottom line.

Signs of investor uncertainty are also evident as BP’s shares slumped by 13 per cent last week, plummeting from the previous week’s close of 495 British pence to 430 pence on Thursday (03 June).  In total, the shares have collapsed by 35 per cent  over the past six weeks.

But is political criticism, consumer activism or investor lapse in confidence really going to punish BP in any meaningful way?

BP has so far been cagey about how the oil spill has affected sales, with little indication of any significant shortfall to date.  Analysts have suggested that customer boycotts following events such as this are frequently mild, short-lived and symbolic at most, as convenience, habit and price offer stronger influences over consumer behaviour.  It has furthermore been noted that in states bordering the Gulf of Mexico, public disapproval is being stifled due to economic dependence on BP for employment and investment, next to concerns that activism may present an additional unwelcome deterrent to tourists.

While BP must pay the price of an effective solution to the spill, support clean-up operations in surrounding geographies and respond to any fine imposed by Government, it seems unlikely that such payouts will touch the extraordinary profit margins realised by the firm over many years.  Take, for example, the $360 million cost to construct six sand barriers off the US state of Louisiana, to protect fragile wetlands from the spreading oil slick.  Compared with BP’s cashflow of $30 billion accrued during the last four quarters alone (and difficult quarters they were too), the relative cost of mitigation seems meagre.

Meanwhile decreasing share prices may signal an overall lapse in confidence in BP corporate, but, as prices fall, trading in the stock markets doubled last week, with 80 per cent of transactions being buys.  Before the oil spill, BP accounted for around nine per cent of the UK FTSE 100‘s value – the list representing the UK’s biggest firms.  It is also one of relatively few stocks to pay a usually high dividend, and consequently accounts for around eight per cent of income flowing into the UK’s pension funds.  Despite immediate risks to dividend payouts, with share prices predicted to bounce back to former glorious heights speculators are snapping up cut price offers at remarkable speed.

Returning to our starting point, the evidence suggests that BP may indeed rise from this disaster relatively unscathed, but for another blot on their corporate copybook which may be forgotten in the public psyche until their next blunder.  The environmental effects of the Deepwater Horizon spill will persist for generations.  The political reverberations may continue for years.  But for BP, it seems their slapped wrist may cease to sting within a much shorter space of time.

[The title of this piece is adapted from the 1957 poem 'Not Waving but Drowning' by Stevie Smith.  The poem describes a man in distress at sea, who is mistakenly thought by onlookers to be waving.]

Diablogue #1, Part 1 : To BP, or not to BP?

As Eco Logical embarks on a new blogging adventure with fellow wordsmith Jill Damatac (The Owl’s Post), Jill begins our Diablogue by exploring the speckled history and murky present of one of the world’s largest oil companies.  The excerpt below sparks the start of our conversation.  Watch this space for part two…

06 Jun 2010 | The Owl’s Post

It has been a little over one month since BP’s still-hemorrhaging Deepwater Horizon oil rig accident.  After yet another spill ten days ago, on May 26, in Alaska’s North Shore region,  two questions arise:  with a checkered history—and present—embroiled in irresponsibility, oversights, and consequential “accidents”, what lays ahead for BP?  And will that future include more than the usual indifference and scorn for regulation on BP’s part and the typical slap-on-the-wrist complacency from government agencies?

As the old baseball rule goes:  three strikes, and you’re out.  May 26’s Alaskan spill, numbering in the thousands of gallons, adds another mark to BP’s already spotty safety record.   As of this week, the beleaguered oil giant—third behind Exxon Mobil and Shell in production—has had four such major “strikes” in nearly as many years.

Click here to read the details at The Owl’s Post >>

Aside from currently tumbling stock prices, will BP really be properly punished and held accountable for their egregious record of irresponsibility and greed?  Or will they, as in their past “accidents”, skate by with a relative slap on the wrist—in the form a fine amounting to a drop in the bucket compared to their enormous profits—and lax government oversight?  There is a case for free enterprise, yes.  However, when that freedom comes to increasingly encroach upon the public good, as BP’s regular forays into environmental and human disaster do, it is time to rein back that freedom for the sake of preserving the liberties of the greater populace.

Who is the greener: red, blue or yellow?

The UK is gripped by election fever.  On Thursday 6th May the country will finally have the opportunity to express its true feelings about the political controversies and uncertainties of recent years, and to make a judgement on a preferred pathway into the future.  But what will that future hold?  Which party will help Britain to prepare for life in a resource constrained world; a world characterised by social, economic and environmental risk, overwhelmingly influenced by climate change?  Filtering out the political mud-slinging and schoolboy playground antics, we look here at the key environmental policies proposed by the UK’s major parties.

Should the Labour Party retain their leadership in 2010, there seems little doubt that the recent UK policy focus on low carbon economic transition will persist.  In the next stage of what Labour terms “national renewal”, the Party promises to create 400,000 new green jobs by 2015 and achieve “around” 40 per cent low carbon electricity by 2020 (a suitably caveated target).  A ‘pay as you save’ home insulation scheme will be launched to support increased energy efficiency of the built environment, whilst landlords will be required to properly insulate rented homes.  Commendable recognition of some major energy and emissions challenges, but sadly limited in breadth.

Labour have stated their ambition for a move towards a ‘zero waste’ Britain, in which recyclable and biodegradable materials will be “banned” from landfill.  Meanwhile there is a promise to maintain the green belt, link together protected areas of habitat, and increase the area of forested land across the country.  How this will be balanced against the overriding interest in housing provision is unclear.  Likewise, Labour’s promise of fairness for food producers through EU reform balances poorly against the Party’s proven reluctance to stand out from the crowd in Europe, whilst their policy to support post offices, shops and pubs in rural communities seems perverse in light of recent widespread closures under their watch.

The Conservative Party have opted for an eco-friendly green tree to support them in their approach to Election 2010, evoking warmth and fuzziness in even the most skeptical eco voters.  The Conservatives promise to put quality of life and environmental issues “at the heart of politics” through the broadest package of environmental objectives offered by the three major parties: zero waste; increased recycling; sustainable water management and action to “help” wildlife (interesting choice of vocabulary there).

In common with Labour, the Tories strategically avoid any suggestion of green taxes or legislation, leaning instead towards voluntary arrangements (on waste) and friendly encouragement (for water efficiency).  Can anybody remember a time when this type of amiable politics effected real change?

The Conservatives place strong emphasis on the countryside, pledging to pioneer a new system of conservation credits to protect habitats and create incentives to invest in wildlife.  Similar to Labour, the Conservatives will maintain the UK’s green belts, launch a national tree planting campaign and protect environmental designations on the country’s landscape.  The latter policy should be far from rocket science; the alternative would surely be a repeal of long-term national legislation?  Unlike Labour, however, the Conservatives fail to recognise the need for global action on the environment and do not consider international partnerships in their approach; a particular oversight in relation to the Party’s ambitions for marine conservation.

The Liberal Democrats make up for what the Conservatives lack in international focus, with a series of commitments to strengthen EU policies on energy and emissions and a call for more ambitious international targets through the Kyoto Protocol and related mechanisms.  This is the only Party to realise the importance of such negotiations for climate change mitigation and adaptation in industrialised and low income countries alike.

The Liberal Democrats’ position on the environment shows strong alignment with the Labour Party in its emphasis on energy, emissions, climate change and green innovation, although going much deeper than Labour in a number of areas.  Energy efficiency measures are limited not just to the built environment, but also explore the efficiency of distribution networks and electrical products.  New colour is added to goals for the future energy mix in the UK, with a strong stance against nuclear power, support for gas as a transition fuel and “encouragement” of energy generation from waste.  Transport also comes under scrutiny, with a promise of 10 per cent renewable fuels by 2015 and and zero carbon emissions for all new cars by 2040.  An impressive array of ambitions; who am I to question the rationale and delivery mechanisms sitting behind them.  What I can question, however, is where the multitude of other (non-carbon) environmental challenges sits on the Liberal Democrat radar.  Believe it or not, energy and climate change are far from the only risks facing the planet.

What the UK needs is a strategic and pragmatic plan for increased resilience to long-term environmental vulnerabilities.  What the UK needs is a survival plan.  There are a few harmonious sounds emerging from each of the three leading parties in 2010.  Each is showing the early signs of understanding some pressing environmental needs, but no single party is offering the full package with the urgency required.  Is it possible that a hung Parliament may benefit the environmental agenda for the UK, if it means that the commitments of the parties can be better integrated, the political risks of environmental management can be overcome, and rhetoric can be replaced by real practical action?

The Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat manifestos for environmental policy are available online for further information.