Global Students in the Global Commons....or, Mere Wishful Thinking?
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
I was never the best in my class, at least through school. Nope, not even the top ten. And yet, I wrote a PhD thesis at Penn State. Now I wonder whether all those ahead of me made it better than me. Many did, but some did not. And not because they weren't interested. Foreign studies are quite resource-intensive. The string of tests and exams that must accompany the application cost quite a bundle, as does the application fee at many universities. Add to it the airfare and partial funding, (not to mention the winter jacket and $25 haircuts!), and the numbers turn daunting, especially for those from middle-class backgrounds unwilling to mortgage their parent's home for personal gains.
But where is this leading to. Hmm, ... to a thought quite concrete and serious. The world is rampant with inequality, especially for students. Though societies increasingly prize true intelligence, free flow of intellect is impeded for various reasons – for lack of resources or on account of various global events, strife and conspiracies. An outright genius in one nation misses out the good life for want of opportunities, information, institutions and resources, while another, inferior by orders of magnitude in another nation, climbs to the top merely because he was the least dumb among frogs in the local community well! Then there is the matter of separation of talents and its 'aficionados'. There is little logic to a world in which geniuses in certain fields of art or science live 12 hours and many Berlin Walls away from those who would nurture them and bring out the best in them. That's not equal opportunity, millenium goals not withstanding! In fact, I'd go a step further, even if on a limb, and assert that there are many parents who are secretly disappointed with their children - parents who believe their children do not appreciate the sacrifices made for them; parents who wish their children, for their own good, learned their lesson early in life; parents willing to break out of the traditional mold of protective parenthood to appreciate the need for justice, opportunity and equality in the broader community. What we need, more than empty rhetoric, is optimal re-allocation of the future generations across this diverse world in a manner that maximizes their potential and their contribution to society, even while providing them the right incentives early in life.
Suppose we do not endow children with either citizenship or property at birth. Suppose they must 'earn' their citizenship and their livelihood by competing one-on-one with all students worldwide. True, various inequalities and obstructions persist across nations to this day. For the moment, let us wish that away by providing for a formal system of 'handicaps'. Now suppose students worldwide wrote a global-citizenship-cum-placement exam at the end of 12 years of schooling. On one side, 50 million hopeful students looking forward to the best that this world can offer in terms of citizenship and career, and on the other,130 countries searching for the best minds and citizens of the future from the global commons, and a million corporations searching for their employees of the future. A giant database of participants, their academic records along with their handicaps and their preferences on one side and, on the other, a database of countries, universities, ('step-parents') and future employers lining up for students/citizens/employees of certain interests and abilities. Add an algorithm that maximizes joint utility of market participants, and what you have is an optimal matching of student interests and abilities with country/employer/university needs.
A global academic placement exam that comes with citizenship offers is likely to provide the necessary incentive for citizens of both rich and poor nations to compete, especially if passing the exam enables these budding students to 'corporatize' themselves and trade their worth on the 'academe-cum-citizenship' 'stock' market. Suppose each student participant was given a certain number of 'shares' based on his performance in the exam and his handicap. Suppose each student was permitted to sell his/her shares to fund further studies. The 'student-corporate' could now fund his/her studies at the best university that (s)he can afford and that accepts him/her, with the proceeds of the share sale. Who would buy them? Parents and schools, informed investors, his 'mother country', and especially those shrewd in evaluating the potential of the young will not mind investing in the hope they will benefit when that person's 'networth' multiplies over the years with his earnings and contribution to society. After all, a genius in hand is worth more than a million 'ornery' heads! Wouldn't that be to the common good of children, parents, nations and their economies? (Then again, who would have thought Prasad would end up writing humor columns of no interest to anyone!)
Great visions?........or mere hallucinations?
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Trade Your Personal GHG Emissions Rights
Trade Your Personal GHG Emissions Rights
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
These days, with the cacophony of words, ads and noises from people and machines, one is not sure whether a certain thought is 'original', smoked out and fed back in with a minor suggestion, transmitted by 'telepathy', heard around or 'stimulated' as part of an IPR test (or is merely a regurgitation of what has already been published). Yet, these considerations should not matter when an idea is in the interest of global commons. So, hear ye, hear one, hear all!
We are already in an era where one could buy in to emissions offsets to pay for the environmental excesses of our actions. Those environmentally conscious buy emissions offsets, ie, reductions in emissions elsewhere, for their business or leisure activities, for example, flying. As an economist, I have mixed reactions. Emissions offsets are an interesting means of obtaining voluntarily participation from the population at large in containing global warming. This is particularly important when our heads of states are unable to agree to a common charter of emissions reduction strategy. But it worries the theoretician in me that the emissions offsets are not strictly the classical optimal tax on emissions-generating activities. The Offsets firm charges you for every gram of CO2 attributable to you. As to how they arrive at that estimate is a mystery. How would you 'divvy up' emissions from a plane flight across the 20 first class passengers, 30 business class and 200 economy class passengers, some of whom would not have traveled if the fare had not been discounted heavily? And what about those bags of mail accompanying your baggage? More importantly, how does the firm know how much of the externality is internalized in the fare and how much not? After all, aviation fuels and air travel are taxed and the fact that the tax is for revenue purposes does not detract from its environmental qualities. Right? So, do these offset firms compute the amount of tax reflected in the fares with different degrees of discount in them? I'd be surprised if they did. More importantly, do they achieve efficiency and global participation? I think not.
If it is truly global participation that we desire, why not consider creating a personal lifetime quota of GHG emissions – call it 'personal emission rights' (as opposed to endowing the industry with the right to emit)? Every human being could be endowed with a tradable and bankable lifetime quota of GHG emissions on birth. Those who wish to engage in emissions-releasing activities, whether individuals, industry or the government, would need to buy emissions units from the online market. Sounds interesting? It is, at least on paper. That quota could be, perhaps should be, equal for every citizen of the world. To grapple with the rising trend in global warming, it might be necessary to denominate the bequeath in the prevailing and projected CO2 concentrations. Higher the ambient CO2 concentration, the lower the initial bequeath. As an add-on rider, one could even add or invalidate an annual emissions amount from all 'quota holders' depending on the change in ambient CO2 concentration.
One may buy or sell emissions units from the online market participants much like you bank, buy or sell stocks and ETFs. Every purchase of airline ticket, cruise vacation or car rental, a bag of rice or atta and the likes would attract a deduction from your emissions quota when you swipe your card to pay. A child born to a wealthy with a lifetime quota of, say 10 tonnes GHG, could buy emissions units from a child born in Sub-Saharan Darfur, thus paying for his/her environmentally damaging lifestyle even while enriching the seller for accepting a lower standard of living. Call this an anti-poverty strategy, if you would so like to. The lifetime quota provides opportunity for parents and the child to plan important activities over a lifetime, in particular, GHG-intensive activities like weddings, vacations, or the purchase of a car. If the price of quota units were sufficiently high, one could even postpone purchases or trade the vacation in (Hey, $5000 dollars for missing out on a week's vacation ain't bad, at least for those not on the World's 100 Richest list!). Some would trade their quota units for a lumpsum at an opportune time (for tuition perhaps?). Others, like the pious in Tibet, could collect a handsome pot for their next life if they so wished, or 'bequeath' it to the aged or paraplegics wishing to fly in to the 'tequila sunrise' or the 'sunset on Santa Monica boulevard'.
As for business, clearly, industries, firms and corporations would need to buy emissions units from the general public to 'fund' their emissions-releasing activities. The price of emissions would be dictated by demand and supply in an online global emissions market. Firms would plan their investments and activities taking cognizance of their GHG-intensiveness, and the price of quota units. A basic materials refiner would pay much more than a computer chip maker, in the process internalizing his release of GHG emissions. As the public feels more apprehensive of global warming, they would have the option to 'retire' banked emissions units, thus decreasing supply and increasing the going price of emissions units. This would provide a signal to the industry to move to cleaner technology, reduce production or increase product prices – eventually resulting in moderation of economic activity and a reduction in emissions. Online global trading permits spatially and temporally efficient allocation of activities. The system puts a price on CO2 emissions – a price that is endogenously determined by the perception of participants in the emissions market. It has all the advantages of an emissions trading systems proposed by environmental economists and more. It induces a competition for low-emission activities and prods the adoption of cleaner technologies as a means to reduce costs and increase profits. It brings about global re-allocation of production and consumption and redistributes wealth in an equity-enhancing manner.
I could say more, but time is fast running out on the blue planet. To close this blog, as useful as the concept of emissions offsets is in starting a trend of voluntary participation in global warming reductions, what we need is an online global, emissions units banking and trading facility, not merely voluntary participation in emissions offset. How I wish this system were retroactive. Haven't driven a car or traveled on plane for ages now!
Hey, no cruise vacations in Alaskan waters with scantily-clad babes either!!! Hey!
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
These days, with the cacophony of words, ads and noises from people and machines, one is not sure whether a certain thought is 'original', smoked out and fed back in with a minor suggestion, transmitted by 'telepathy', heard around or 'stimulated' as part of an IPR test (or is merely a regurgitation of what has already been published). Yet, these considerations should not matter when an idea is in the interest of global commons. So, hear ye, hear one, hear all!
We are already in an era where one could buy in to emissions offsets to pay for the environmental excesses of our actions. Those environmentally conscious buy emissions offsets, ie, reductions in emissions elsewhere, for their business or leisure activities, for example, flying. As an economist, I have mixed reactions. Emissions offsets are an interesting means of obtaining voluntarily participation from the population at large in containing global warming. This is particularly important when our heads of states are unable to agree to a common charter of emissions reduction strategy. But it worries the theoretician in me that the emissions offsets are not strictly the classical optimal tax on emissions-generating activities. The Offsets firm charges you for every gram of CO2 attributable to you. As to how they arrive at that estimate is a mystery. How would you 'divvy up' emissions from a plane flight across the 20 first class passengers, 30 business class and 200 economy class passengers, some of whom would not have traveled if the fare had not been discounted heavily? And what about those bags of mail accompanying your baggage? More importantly, how does the firm know how much of the externality is internalized in the fare and how much not? After all, aviation fuels and air travel are taxed and the fact that the tax is for revenue purposes does not detract from its environmental qualities. Right? So, do these offset firms compute the amount of tax reflected in the fares with different degrees of discount in them? I'd be surprised if they did. More importantly, do they achieve efficiency and global participation? I think not.
If it is truly global participation that we desire, why not consider creating a personal lifetime quota of GHG emissions – call it 'personal emission rights' (as opposed to endowing the industry with the right to emit)? Every human being could be endowed with a tradable and bankable lifetime quota of GHG emissions on birth. Those who wish to engage in emissions-releasing activities, whether individuals, industry or the government, would need to buy emissions units from the online market. Sounds interesting? It is, at least on paper. That quota could be, perhaps should be, equal for every citizen of the world. To grapple with the rising trend in global warming, it might be necessary to denominate the bequeath in the prevailing and projected CO2 concentrations. Higher the ambient CO2 concentration, the lower the initial bequeath. As an add-on rider, one could even add or invalidate an annual emissions amount from all 'quota holders' depending on the change in ambient CO2 concentration.
One may buy or sell emissions units from the online market participants much like you bank, buy or sell stocks and ETFs. Every purchase of airline ticket, cruise vacation or car rental, a bag of rice or atta and the likes would attract a deduction from your emissions quota when you swipe your card to pay. A child born to a wealthy with a lifetime quota of, say 10 tonnes GHG, could buy emissions units from a child born in Sub-Saharan Darfur, thus paying for his/her environmentally damaging lifestyle even while enriching the seller for accepting a lower standard of living. Call this an anti-poverty strategy, if you would so like to. The lifetime quota provides opportunity for parents and the child to plan important activities over a lifetime, in particular, GHG-intensive activities like weddings, vacations, or the purchase of a car. If the price of quota units were sufficiently high, one could even postpone purchases or trade the vacation in (Hey, $5000 dollars for missing out on a week's vacation ain't bad, at least for those not on the World's 100 Richest list!). Some would trade their quota units for a lumpsum at an opportune time (for tuition perhaps?). Others, like the pious in Tibet, could collect a handsome pot for their next life if they so wished, or 'bequeath' it to the aged or paraplegics wishing to fly in to the 'tequila sunrise' or the 'sunset on Santa Monica boulevard'.
As for business, clearly, industries, firms and corporations would need to buy emissions units from the general public to 'fund' their emissions-releasing activities. The price of emissions would be dictated by demand and supply in an online global emissions market. Firms would plan their investments and activities taking cognizance of their GHG-intensiveness, and the price of quota units. A basic materials refiner would pay much more than a computer chip maker, in the process internalizing his release of GHG emissions. As the public feels more apprehensive of global warming, they would have the option to 'retire' banked emissions units, thus decreasing supply and increasing the going price of emissions units. This would provide a signal to the industry to move to cleaner technology, reduce production or increase product prices – eventually resulting in moderation of economic activity and a reduction in emissions. Online global trading permits spatially and temporally efficient allocation of activities. The system puts a price on CO2 emissions – a price that is endogenously determined by the perception of participants in the emissions market. It has all the advantages of an emissions trading systems proposed by environmental economists and more. It induces a competition for low-emission activities and prods the adoption of cleaner technologies as a means to reduce costs and increase profits. It brings about global re-allocation of production and consumption and redistributes wealth in an equity-enhancing manner.
I could say more, but time is fast running out on the blue planet. To close this blog, as useful as the concept of emissions offsets is in starting a trend of voluntary participation in global warming reductions, what we need is an online global, emissions units banking and trading facility, not merely voluntary participation in emissions offset. How I wish this system were retroactive. Haven't driven a car or traveled on plane for ages now!
Hey, no cruise vacations in Alaskan waters with scantily-clad babes either!!! Hey!
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Public (Sector) and Private (Equity) Hallucinations
Public (Sector) and Private (Equity) Hallucinations
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
Living in a socialist country with government-sponsored 'public sector' enterprises, it is easy to forget what the objectives of these entities are. In truth, they are oriented more to the nation's cause of infrastructure development, to a less-endorsed extent employment generation, and, as I would like to (mis)believe, to raise the per-capita consumption of various goods and services (why else would they compare inter-country per-capita figures in Planning Commission documents?). With government appointed board members who take their orders from their political masters at the Ministry, these entities also serve to control investment, prices and inventories in the market, not to mention stock up goods meant for subsidized distribution. I half-suspect, the government plays a strategic 'duopolistic' game with the private players – the government's interpretation of the 'dominant firm' type competition!
Anyway, the point I would like to make here is that different entities have different objectives that influence their market behavior. A PSU perforce seeks to satisfy its Ministry (the Government typically owns a majority if not a overwhelming share of stock). And the Minister is not satisfied with a dividend cheque. The PSUs must fund his pet projects, favor his clients (So what if the tender is closed; reopen it and pull my contractor in), share in his obligations, provide him opportunities to make welfare announcements of various kinds and, of course, pull in funds for his political masters even while negotiating wages and benefits with various cadres of workers and officers. And don't forget the obligation to participate in national cause of reducing inflation by cutting back prices! I'd be surprised if any of these PSUs even have an optimization model to guide their actions.
Talking about profit max models, gone are the days when the company economist could plug in prices in to his LP model that spit out production of various products at various production sites along with a matrix of inputs. In these days of stock options, commodity hedging, derivatives trading and switching strategic regimes, the conventional optimization model merely achieves static efficiency – at most. Depending on the ownership structure of the firm (promoter's stake and the amount/nature of stock options), 'policy stability', firm's investment plans and market structure, a true inter-temporal model of profit maximization could be very complicated indeed. It is an open question whether our managers in the public and private sectors appreciate these complexities. It's another question whether they should even take cognizance of it (In the land of inferiors, laissez faire is immortal!)
Did you say 'laissez faire'? Enter the Dragon, I mean the private equity firms – staffed by those shadowy smart necks who did not socialize in the Corporate Strategy lecture at your Ivy League College! Admittedly, there are different kinds of private equities with different motives, but I mean those who takeover a (publicly-listed, perhaps loss-making) business, turn it around, and exit when its stock price zooms by a factor of a hundred – all in a period of a decade or so. Surely, they do not go by your profit max model? Profit max move aside. It is the day of EPS growth-based optimization models – the only denominator that investors recognize! Pray, what is that? These private equity players have a gameplan that achieves their goal that is squarely focused on actions that turn the stock attractive in the market. Engineering mergers and bankruptcies, working with the elected representatives to modify regulations and the books to their advantage, reappraising markets and product mix across the quality dimension, product differentiation, focused advertising around brand-recognition, focusing on IPR-protected markets and anticipating the future with knowledge of yet unpublished technological advances – these are the hallmarks of these entities. Behind them, I presume, is the unholy troika of MIT brains with hybrid financial-economic-accounting models, large international consulting organizations and strategic investors with supercomputers that churn all the data that the CIA and World Bank/IFC could conceivably gather to evaluate the course of international economies, stock markets and sectoral trends under alternative strategies. What chance do 'mortals' have against these behemoths?
Makes you wonder, if they are so efficient at their game, why not turn our sick PSUs over to these guys? They could even share in the spoils when these PSUs are offered in a public IPO following the turnaround. Food for thought!
More hallucinations, anyone?
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
Living in a socialist country with government-sponsored 'public sector' enterprises, it is easy to forget what the objectives of these entities are. In truth, they are oriented more to the nation's cause of infrastructure development, to a less-endorsed extent employment generation, and, as I would like to (mis)believe, to raise the per-capita consumption of various goods and services (why else would they compare inter-country per-capita figures in Planning Commission documents?). With government appointed board members who take their orders from their political masters at the Ministry, these entities also serve to control investment, prices and inventories in the market, not to mention stock up goods meant for subsidized distribution. I half-suspect, the government plays a strategic 'duopolistic' game with the private players – the government's interpretation of the 'dominant firm' type competition!
Anyway, the point I would like to make here is that different entities have different objectives that influence their market behavior. A PSU perforce seeks to satisfy its Ministry (the Government typically owns a majority if not a overwhelming share of stock). And the Minister is not satisfied with a dividend cheque. The PSUs must fund his pet projects, favor his clients (So what if the tender is closed; reopen it and pull my contractor in), share in his obligations, provide him opportunities to make welfare announcements of various kinds and, of course, pull in funds for his political masters even while negotiating wages and benefits with various cadres of workers and officers. And don't forget the obligation to participate in national cause of reducing inflation by cutting back prices! I'd be surprised if any of these PSUs even have an optimization model to guide their actions.
Talking about profit max models, gone are the days when the company economist could plug in prices in to his LP model that spit out production of various products at various production sites along with a matrix of inputs. In these days of stock options, commodity hedging, derivatives trading and switching strategic regimes, the conventional optimization model merely achieves static efficiency – at most. Depending on the ownership structure of the firm (promoter's stake and the amount/nature of stock options), 'policy stability', firm's investment plans and market structure, a true inter-temporal model of profit maximization could be very complicated indeed. It is an open question whether our managers in the public and private sectors appreciate these complexities. It's another question whether they should even take cognizance of it (In the land of inferiors, laissez faire is immortal!)
Did you say 'laissez faire'? Enter the Dragon, I mean the private equity firms – staffed by those shadowy smart necks who did not socialize in the Corporate Strategy lecture at your Ivy League College! Admittedly, there are different kinds of private equities with different motives, but I mean those who takeover a (publicly-listed, perhaps loss-making) business, turn it around, and exit when its stock price zooms by a factor of a hundred – all in a period of a decade or so. Surely, they do not go by your profit max model? Profit max move aside. It is the day of EPS growth-based optimization models – the only denominator that investors recognize! Pray, what is that? These private equity players have a gameplan that achieves their goal that is squarely focused on actions that turn the stock attractive in the market. Engineering mergers and bankruptcies, working with the elected representatives to modify regulations and the books to their advantage, reappraising markets and product mix across the quality dimension, product differentiation, focused advertising around brand-recognition, focusing on IPR-protected markets and anticipating the future with knowledge of yet unpublished technological advances – these are the hallmarks of these entities. Behind them, I presume, is the unholy troika of MIT brains with hybrid financial-economic-accounting models, large international consulting organizations and strategic investors with supercomputers that churn all the data that the CIA and World Bank/IFC could conceivably gather to evaluate the course of international economies, stock markets and sectoral trends under alternative strategies. What chance do 'mortals' have against these behemoths?
Makes you wonder, if they are so efficient at their game, why not turn our sick PSUs over to these guys? They could even share in the spoils when these PSUs are offered in a public IPO following the turnaround. Food for thought!
More hallucinations, anyone?
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Pollute Not the Oceans
Pollute Not the Oceans
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
It was, with Africa, the Arctics and the Antarctic, one of the ultimate unknowns, the ultimate expanse, the fear of many a mariner in the centuries gone by. No longer. Today, practically every inch of the ocean is mapped. No sea, strait or island has escaped the marauding humans. It is perhaps an unwritten law of nature that destruction follows where man sets foot. After turning the atmosphere and land in to the toilet of the industry, overrunning lakes, and polluting rivers, it is now our hallowed duty to commit the ultimate insult to God's world. Let's exploit the purity of the oceans as well!
Not that it has escaped our attention. Honestly, if the oceans are yet sought after, it is not because we haven't tried to despoil it. Those ignorant or otherwise not informed may wonder if human activity has left any mark on the ocean systems. For one, the ocean waters are noticeably warmer, thanks to human activity. A warmer ocean means more evaporation, more humidity and rainy afternoons. Not too long ago, the media reported changes in ocean currents, thanks to global warming. Imagine a world with the Labrador current turning warmer and exacerbating the melting of the ice in the Arctic circle. Imagine the hapless creatures of the deep when their migratory and reproductive patterns are overturned and overrun by human-induced climate change. Sea-level rise caused by melting of polar ice caps could overrun beaches and coastal eco-systems that took centuries to develop. We discharge treated (and untreated) sewage in to the oceans, sometime not half a kilometer from beach revelers. The floods wash in to oceans stuff that escapes the sewers. Oil spills during crude/product transfer at the port or from grounding of tankers make news headlines ever so often. Add to that the widening and deepening of ports and shallow straits, land reclamation from shallow seas, sub-marine archaeological digs, mid-sea dumping of garbage, the discharge of water and sewage from cruise liners, discharges from deep-sea oil production, and the ever expanding global trade by sea, and what do you have? We don't need a rocket scientist to tell us that human influences are fundamentally, and perhaps irreversibly, altering the physical, chemical and biological systems of the oceans and that could mean the difference between life and death for marine creatures.
The more I think of these matters, the more I am convinced that human economic systems will always expand by exploiting unpriced resources and their services (land, air, lakes, rivers and oceans) without limits (or more correctly, until resource deterioration hurts the capitalist's purse). We could price these resources in, but achieving that through regulations in 110 countries with 22 different types of legislative/judicial processes amid the not infrequent changes of governments, despite the Sea Conventions and IMO rules, can be a very discouraging experience. Why not create a single global stewardship of the oceans, much like the GEF, but smaller and more focused, and endow it with the right to police and exact payments for various services provided by oceans across the seven seas? If a Sustainable Oceans Administration were funded by matching its profits (revenues from services net of costs of environmental remediation) from the stewardship of the oceans, then, it would have the incentive to permit truly sustainable exploitation of the oceans. It would have, on one hand, the knowledge to price ocean services according to demand and the damage imposed, and on the other, the werewithal to fund corrective actions that limit environmental damage to the oceans.
What's that I hear? ..... Sure, we could wait until the sea turns green from human avarice and apathy!
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
It was, with Africa, the Arctics and the Antarctic, one of the ultimate unknowns, the ultimate expanse, the fear of many a mariner in the centuries gone by. No longer. Today, practically every inch of the ocean is mapped. No sea, strait or island has escaped the marauding humans. It is perhaps an unwritten law of nature that destruction follows where man sets foot. After turning the atmosphere and land in to the toilet of the industry, overrunning lakes, and polluting rivers, it is now our hallowed duty to commit the ultimate insult to God's world. Let's exploit the purity of the oceans as well!
Not that it has escaped our attention. Honestly, if the oceans are yet sought after, it is not because we haven't tried to despoil it. Those ignorant or otherwise not informed may wonder if human activity has left any mark on the ocean systems. For one, the ocean waters are noticeably warmer, thanks to human activity. A warmer ocean means more evaporation, more humidity and rainy afternoons. Not too long ago, the media reported changes in ocean currents, thanks to global warming. Imagine a world with the Labrador current turning warmer and exacerbating the melting of the ice in the Arctic circle. Imagine the hapless creatures of the deep when their migratory and reproductive patterns are overturned and overrun by human-induced climate change. Sea-level rise caused by melting of polar ice caps could overrun beaches and coastal eco-systems that took centuries to develop. We discharge treated (and untreated) sewage in to the oceans, sometime not half a kilometer from beach revelers. The floods wash in to oceans stuff that escapes the sewers. Oil spills during crude/product transfer at the port or from grounding of tankers make news headlines ever so often. Add to that the widening and deepening of ports and shallow straits, land reclamation from shallow seas, sub-marine archaeological digs, mid-sea dumping of garbage, the discharge of water and sewage from cruise liners, discharges from deep-sea oil production, and the ever expanding global trade by sea, and what do you have? We don't need a rocket scientist to tell us that human influences are fundamentally, and perhaps irreversibly, altering the physical, chemical and biological systems of the oceans and that could mean the difference between life and death for marine creatures.
The more I think of these matters, the more I am convinced that human economic systems will always expand by exploiting unpriced resources and their services (land, air, lakes, rivers and oceans) without limits (or more correctly, until resource deterioration hurts the capitalist's purse). We could price these resources in, but achieving that through regulations in 110 countries with 22 different types of legislative/judicial processes amid the not infrequent changes of governments, despite the Sea Conventions and IMO rules, can be a very discouraging experience. Why not create a single global stewardship of the oceans, much like the GEF, but smaller and more focused, and endow it with the right to police and exact payments for various services provided by oceans across the seven seas? If a Sustainable Oceans Administration were funded by matching its profits (revenues from services net of costs of environmental remediation) from the stewardship of the oceans, then, it would have the incentive to permit truly sustainable exploitation of the oceans. It would have, on one hand, the knowledge to price ocean services according to demand and the damage imposed, and on the other, the werewithal to fund corrective actions that limit environmental damage to the oceans.
What's that I hear? ..... Sure, we could wait until the sea turns green from human avarice and apathy!
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
The Nuclear Ballot Dance
The Nuclear Ballot Dance
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
General elections are not exactly 'once in a blue moon' events. Though meant to occur quinquennially, I suspect they are held more often, perhaps every three-four years on average. Each election is touted as a momentous, historically important event; yet, few are as important as the one being suggested among political circles these days. Dissension in the UPA coalition regarding the 123 agreement and comments by Advani give credence to rumours of an impending election. With the economy in overdrive, the monsoons obliging, and inflation tamed for the immediate future, this is as good an opportunity that Sonia will ever get to 'spring a surprise'.
An election is not just the choice of one candidate or party over another to rule us. It is an occasion to take stock of promises, achievements and failures, and prepare the nation to renew the battle and confront various issues – from the past and of the future. The nuclear agreement with the US is a once in a century or country's lifetime sort of deal. It stands as the testament to the resolve of two nations to forge a peaceful nuclear future. Standing at the threshold of a peaceful nuclear future, as we do, today, this election, whether scheduled for the next month or next year, is one of unparalleled importance to the country. Undoubtedly, it will be labeled a nuclear ballot – a ballot that the US will watch closely to gauge the interest and involvement, opinions, preferences and resolve of India's masses with regard to the 123 accord.
Admittedly, there are many issues. Should nuclear treaties be negotiated by a coalition government in which the right hand would rather not know what the left is doing? Should political parties explicitly come out with their position on the 123 agreement and on the larger question of nuclear disarmament vs nuclear detente (and will they stick to those positions if surprised at the ballot box)? What does the 123 agreement imply for our nuclear fortunes vis-a-vis Pakistan and China or for that matter, nuclear terrorism (now that a nuke can be camouflaged inside a briefcase and detonated by remote instruction from the ISS!)? More to the point, should voters declare their nuclear preferences independent of their vote for party candidates, ie, should we add an issue ballot to the election? In any case, how do we deal with issues that affect future generations, perhaps the country's future for centuries, not just the next 3 years and 49 weeks?
Most parties have come out with their stand on the matter. Not surprisingly and apparently, the Left has back stabbed the UPA from within the government, stalling the ratification process. But that raises the question as to why the US would negotiate for years with a left-supported coalition government? Surely, they don't want a general election to ratify the treaty? Something is amiss, if you ask me. Perhaps the Left is but a mouthpiece for the NDA, which has strategically chosen not to take a hardline positions ahead of the polls (speaking for another is a tried and tested strategy of evasion). Perhaps the US seeks the ratification of the Indian people – a general election - to the agreement? Perhaps it is the US Presidential elections. Perhaps Global Warming politics. Perhaps a little of each. Whatever the truth, the prospect of elections are real. That brings to the fore the question of 'bundled agenda'. How will the left, the right and regional parties rank and group their platforms on various issues? Will political parties take their stand on 123 taking account of the leanings of their supporters, or will they try to have them buy in to it by offering a 'candy' of an 'FDI funded' stock market? Will the traditional vote banks stand if the left does a 180 degree turn on the nuke issue? Thankfully, it seems that the 123 agreement will not bring about specific-sector biases. Thus, a decision one way or another will only affect our overall prospects, not the fertilizer or fuel subsidy – at least in the short-run. Besides, the fact that 'bread and butter issues' dominate the reasoning of the common man, implies that a popular mandate for one party cannot be interpreted as endorsement of its stand on the 123 agreement. Thus, the return of UPA or, more realistically, some form of Congress-led coalition cannot be presumed the nation's approval apropos the agreement (unless, it so campaigns – which it is unlikely to). For this reason, the only resolution to this dilemma is, perhaps, a parallel issue ballot on the 123 agreement with the general election. We should require parties to explicitly state their position on the proposed agreement as part of their campaign platform. Citizens then vote twice at the ballot box, once for a government, and once regarding the 123 agreement. In the latter ballot, the vote could be for a party or a yes/no on the agreement or its significant issues/clauses. In this manner, the entire country could be polled and its opinion reflected in our final decision on the nuclear agreement.
An average voter would ask what the costs and benefits of signing on to the 123 agreement are. For one, signing an accord with the US relieves us of participating in an escalating nuclear cold war of nerves with Pakistan and China. A war can devastate a country by wiping out decades of progress and handicap its future beside washing away trillions in wealth. Ask the Iraqis. Peace is worth a lot of money. India could divert the ballooning defense budget to peacetime needs and meet its goals of better infrastructure, universal education, a better equipped law and order machinery and basic human needs (In layman's terms, a hundred schools instead of one Agni ICBM). With the US as an ally, we could forge commercial alliances that exploit their advanced technology and our human resource expertise. The US gains a much-needed foothold in to South-Asia to counterbalance the growing might of the Chinese and the dangerous impatience and resentment in Pakistan. And of course, George Bush may claim another feather in the cap in his quest for nuclear demilitarization. There are costs too. We will no longer be a NAM country, bound as we will be in to sub-serving the cause of the US (not that non-alignment ever mattered much). Our reactors and research centers will be under 'IAEA' inspection. We know what that means. Our researchers will be put under the horseblinds of the US and the IAEA. Funds meant for thorium-cycle research will be diverted to food irradiation and nuclear refining of crude oil. And India will take a back-seat in global warming matters and follow the lead of a country that has anticipated the phenomenon so well that it now benefits both by adapting and responding to it. (Hell, we might as well grow wheat on the land leased underneath the Iceland icecap!). A benefits-maximizing decision in the context of these and other strategic angles is well-nigh impossible. But that should not stop our politicians, policymakers and indeed, us citizens, from examining and weighing the 123 agreement in different contexts before coming to a decision. It is our duty to act pro-actively and ensure that our country takes an informed decision on the nuclear pact with the West - one that could be the first step in our eventual integration with the G-8, but could also be our doom if we choose to play petty politics that has many a time made our democracy the laughing stock around the world.
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
General elections are not exactly 'once in a blue moon' events. Though meant to occur quinquennially, I suspect they are held more often, perhaps every three-four years on average. Each election is touted as a momentous, historically important event; yet, few are as important as the one being suggested among political circles these days. Dissension in the UPA coalition regarding the 123 agreement and comments by Advani give credence to rumours of an impending election. With the economy in overdrive, the monsoons obliging, and inflation tamed for the immediate future, this is as good an opportunity that Sonia will ever get to 'spring a surprise'.
An election is not just the choice of one candidate or party over another to rule us. It is an occasion to take stock of promises, achievements and failures, and prepare the nation to renew the battle and confront various issues – from the past and of the future. The nuclear agreement with the US is a once in a century or country's lifetime sort of deal. It stands as the testament to the resolve of two nations to forge a peaceful nuclear future. Standing at the threshold of a peaceful nuclear future, as we do, today, this election, whether scheduled for the next month or next year, is one of unparalleled importance to the country. Undoubtedly, it will be labeled a nuclear ballot – a ballot that the US will watch closely to gauge the interest and involvement, opinions, preferences and resolve of India's masses with regard to the 123 accord.
Admittedly, there are many issues. Should nuclear treaties be negotiated by a coalition government in which the right hand would rather not know what the left is doing? Should political parties explicitly come out with their position on the 123 agreement and on the larger question of nuclear disarmament vs nuclear detente (and will they stick to those positions if surprised at the ballot box)? What does the 123 agreement imply for our nuclear fortunes vis-a-vis Pakistan and China or for that matter, nuclear terrorism (now that a nuke can be camouflaged inside a briefcase and detonated by remote instruction from the ISS!)? More to the point, should voters declare their nuclear preferences independent of their vote for party candidates, ie, should we add an issue ballot to the election? In any case, how do we deal with issues that affect future generations, perhaps the country's future for centuries, not just the next 3 years and 49 weeks?
Most parties have come out with their stand on the matter. Not surprisingly and apparently, the Left has back stabbed the UPA from within the government, stalling the ratification process. But that raises the question as to why the US would negotiate for years with a left-supported coalition government? Surely, they don't want a general election to ratify the treaty? Something is amiss, if you ask me. Perhaps the Left is but a mouthpiece for the NDA, which has strategically chosen not to take a hardline positions ahead of the polls (speaking for another is a tried and tested strategy of evasion). Perhaps the US seeks the ratification of the Indian people – a general election - to the agreement? Perhaps it is the US Presidential elections. Perhaps Global Warming politics. Perhaps a little of each. Whatever the truth, the prospect of elections are real. That brings to the fore the question of 'bundled agenda'. How will the left, the right and regional parties rank and group their platforms on various issues? Will political parties take their stand on 123 taking account of the leanings of their supporters, or will they try to have them buy in to it by offering a 'candy' of an 'FDI funded' stock market? Will the traditional vote banks stand if the left does a 180 degree turn on the nuke issue? Thankfully, it seems that the 123 agreement will not bring about specific-sector biases. Thus, a decision one way or another will only affect our overall prospects, not the fertilizer or fuel subsidy – at least in the short-run. Besides, the fact that 'bread and butter issues' dominate the reasoning of the common man, implies that a popular mandate for one party cannot be interpreted as endorsement of its stand on the 123 agreement. Thus, the return of UPA or, more realistically, some form of Congress-led coalition cannot be presumed the nation's approval apropos the agreement (unless, it so campaigns – which it is unlikely to). For this reason, the only resolution to this dilemma is, perhaps, a parallel issue ballot on the 123 agreement with the general election. We should require parties to explicitly state their position on the proposed agreement as part of their campaign platform. Citizens then vote twice at the ballot box, once for a government, and once regarding the 123 agreement. In the latter ballot, the vote could be for a party or a yes/no on the agreement or its significant issues/clauses. In this manner, the entire country could be polled and its opinion reflected in our final decision on the nuclear agreement.
An average voter would ask what the costs and benefits of signing on to the 123 agreement are. For one, signing an accord with the US relieves us of participating in an escalating nuclear cold war of nerves with Pakistan and China. A war can devastate a country by wiping out decades of progress and handicap its future beside washing away trillions in wealth. Ask the Iraqis. Peace is worth a lot of money. India could divert the ballooning defense budget to peacetime needs and meet its goals of better infrastructure, universal education, a better equipped law and order machinery and basic human needs (In layman's terms, a hundred schools instead of one Agni ICBM). With the US as an ally, we could forge commercial alliances that exploit their advanced technology and our human resource expertise. The US gains a much-needed foothold in to South-Asia to counterbalance the growing might of the Chinese and the dangerous impatience and resentment in Pakistan. And of course, George Bush may claim another feather in the cap in his quest for nuclear demilitarization. There are costs too. We will no longer be a NAM country, bound as we will be in to sub-serving the cause of the US (not that non-alignment ever mattered much). Our reactors and research centers will be under 'IAEA' inspection. We know what that means. Our researchers will be put under the horseblinds of the US and the IAEA. Funds meant for thorium-cycle research will be diverted to food irradiation and nuclear refining of crude oil. And India will take a back-seat in global warming matters and follow the lead of a country that has anticipated the phenomenon so well that it now benefits both by adapting and responding to it. (Hell, we might as well grow wheat on the land leased underneath the Iceland icecap!). A benefits-maximizing decision in the context of these and other strategic angles is well-nigh impossible. But that should not stop our politicians, policymakers and indeed, us citizens, from examining and weighing the 123 agreement in different contexts before coming to a decision. It is our duty to act pro-actively and ensure that our country takes an informed decision on the nuclear pact with the West - one that could be the first step in our eventual integration with the G-8, but could also be our doom if we choose to play petty politics that has many a time made our democracy the laughing stock around the world.
Monday, September 10, 2007
BEAM THE US PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE WORLDWIDE
BEAM THE US PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE WORLDWIDE
(Read on, some commie rhetoric, notwithstanding!)
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
In the days of past, The Hindu carried a column - a narrow one at that on its international page, mentioning the US presidential elections and how the candidates fared in the debate perhaps on its international page. There was no talk of it in the buses, offices or at the canteens. In fact, I suspect only the most minuscule minority ever cared to even read and ponder about it – and they happened to be the guys over at the Embassy!
The world now is eons removed from that a few decades back. But somethings haven't changed. Presidential debates are in the air again, but are we any less indifferent? The US, the largest economy in the world, is also the largest debtor. Incredibly, it also protects capitalism by enforcing its debt-funded military might. Military might is also 'might is right' in financial markets which it manipulates in the cover of restoring 'balance' and 'sense' to the markets to (ir)regularly draw money in to its coffers. Some strategy! But that's not all. For all we know, they may be funding their social security, their medicare, their 8-figure lawsuit damage awards, and even their beach-side resort insurance payouts from the global financial markets (why should the FDIC cover those mortgages?). Why do I suspect a grand conspiracy to offload the entire debt on the international community (along with global warming) just as the US shifts in to an environmentally virtuous, closed-cycle economy? If we do not wake up to these possibilities, there will be more sub-prime crises, more 'black Mondays', 'deny Wednesdays' and 'bilk you' Fridays.
Can we afford to not take cognizance of events in the US anymore? Shall we remain mute witnesses to the grandiose socialist plans of the democrats and the vain military campaigns of the republican Presidential hopefuls even as we swelter in the 100 degree heat and hope against hope that the stock market 'will bounce right back' (whereas the 'bears' are waiting for their 'breakfast, lunch and dinner')? Well, sure!, but at the risk of turning our country's billion heads servile to the consumptive urges of the US citizens for decades and centuries. Now, what's the word for that? Slavery! Right. Let us act before the US exports slavery behind capitalism worldwide. Let us participate actively in the presidential polls of the country that has been eulogized for acting as a global defender of freedom and capitalism. Pray, in what way? Thankfully, the Presidential debate preceding the polls is open and public. And in this world of instant internet connectivity, the global citizen may participate just as actively as an US citizen switching channels between the Presidential debate and 'Mundy Night Football' while partaking of Lays chips and guzzling down a 6-pack in the time it takes to kick a field goal! Write to the Presidential candidates. Voice your opinions, your thoughts, your fears and your hopes (Your agenda and your ideas too, if know how. Don't ask me. I either keep them private or put them on my blog). Let them know what you feel about their policies and budgetary plans. Tell them what they should do with Iraq today and Iran tomorrow (you know you are paying for it). Give them your priorities. Education vs missile defense system, million-dollars an hour insurance advocates vs uninsured, unvaccinated infants, landing on pluto's moon vs toilet facilities for tourists. $10 per hour baby-sitters vs unemployed US-trained Phds!
Don't worry about propriety. Or your vocabulary and grammar. Be an active citizen of the global commons. Stand for freedom, equality, a world without borders, (more than nuclear) peace, a sustainable economy, equal opportunity,.... the issues are many.
Take a stand. Your children will thank you for it.
(Read on, some commie rhetoric, notwithstanding!)
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
In the days of past, The Hindu carried a column - a narrow one at that on its international page, mentioning the US presidential elections and how the candidates fared in the debate perhaps on its international page. There was no talk of it in the buses, offices or at the canteens. In fact, I suspect only the most minuscule minority ever cared to even read and ponder about it – and they happened to be the guys over at the Embassy!
The world now is eons removed from that a few decades back. But somethings haven't changed. Presidential debates are in the air again, but are we any less indifferent? The US, the largest economy in the world, is also the largest debtor. Incredibly, it also protects capitalism by enforcing its debt-funded military might. Military might is also 'might is right' in financial markets which it manipulates in the cover of restoring 'balance' and 'sense' to the markets to (ir)regularly draw money in to its coffers. Some strategy! But that's not all. For all we know, they may be funding their social security, their medicare, their 8-figure lawsuit damage awards, and even their beach-side resort insurance payouts from the global financial markets (why should the FDIC cover those mortgages?). Why do I suspect a grand conspiracy to offload the entire debt on the international community (along with global warming) just as the US shifts in to an environmentally virtuous, closed-cycle economy? If we do not wake up to these possibilities, there will be more sub-prime crises, more 'black Mondays', 'deny Wednesdays' and 'bilk you' Fridays.
Can we afford to not take cognizance of events in the US anymore? Shall we remain mute witnesses to the grandiose socialist plans of the democrats and the vain military campaigns of the republican Presidential hopefuls even as we swelter in the 100 degree heat and hope against hope that the stock market 'will bounce right back' (whereas the 'bears' are waiting for their 'breakfast, lunch and dinner')? Well, sure!, but at the risk of turning our country's billion heads servile to the consumptive urges of the US citizens for decades and centuries. Now, what's the word for that? Slavery! Right. Let us act before the US exports slavery behind capitalism worldwide. Let us participate actively in the presidential polls of the country that has been eulogized for acting as a global defender of freedom and capitalism. Pray, in what way? Thankfully, the Presidential debate preceding the polls is open and public. And in this world of instant internet connectivity, the global citizen may participate just as actively as an US citizen switching channels between the Presidential debate and 'Mundy Night Football' while partaking of Lays chips and guzzling down a 6-pack in the time it takes to kick a field goal! Write to the Presidential candidates. Voice your opinions, your thoughts, your fears and your hopes (Your agenda and your ideas too, if know how. Don't ask me. I either keep them private or put them on my blog). Let them know what you feel about their policies and budgetary plans. Tell them what they should do with Iraq today and Iran tomorrow (you know you are paying for it). Give them your priorities. Education vs missile defense system, million-dollars an hour insurance advocates vs uninsured, unvaccinated infants, landing on pluto's moon vs toilet facilities for tourists. $10 per hour baby-sitters vs unemployed US-trained Phds!
Don't worry about propriety. Or your vocabulary and grammar. Be an active citizen of the global commons. Stand for freedom, equality, a world without borders, (more than nuclear) peace, a sustainable economy, equal opportunity,.... the issues are many.
Take a stand. Your children will thank you for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
