1. Why there is still hope of saving the world: Assessment Summit Copenhagen Climate Change
2. Nuclear double standard: who pulls the strings to the International Agency of Atomic Energy?
3. Canada and torture: the passive acceptance, it is actively promoting
4. Capitalism 2.0: a wine that ages very, very badly!
BALANCE OF COPENHAGEN
What was actually decided in Copenhagen?
50,000 people go to Denmark and all that emerges is a sad political understanding of three pages?
A document that does not require any countries to do anything about their rate of GHG emissions
Worse, it was evident at the summit, the global division between rich and poor has never in human history been greater
But above as clear and visible and those countries where people are already experiencing the effects of droughts and floods
And the melting of glaciers ... the vital source of fresh water ...
Not to mention small island nations in facing a certain death as sea levels rise
In the Copenhagen agreement is not mandatory, is voluntary, the results will be assessed informally in five years ...
The document was drafted behind closed doors, in the manner of what one is accustomed with WTO
It eliminates all the important questions, and leaves open loopholes or contradictions at every plant important point attempts to
But anyway, it would have been worse
A pseudo-agreement could be useless much better than a coercive cartel everyone who boards in targets inadequate and destructive policies such as expanding carbon markets
But the loss of a robust and serious UN could be worse than that
Yet for climate activists worldwide Copenhagen was a great opportunity to network, as did the anti-globalization activists in Seattle 10 years ago
and I keep hoping, finally, c ' My only hope is that these people were able to establish enough contact and can cause a global shift in consciousness that will lead to a political commitment that is not completely crazy
Another positive spin is that nothing has been given to the global financial elite who hoped that an agreement in Copenhagen to expand their market artificial carbon permits
we hear about
BALANCE OF COPENHAGEN
can not live without a new agreement on climate change ...
our lifetime we could see the world agricultural production to fall freely at low altitudes and at high altitudes will have it up ... which is not likely to happen
According to the organization that is the summary of research on climate change, the potential global production of food is almost certainly in decline beyond a warming of 3C ... 90% certain
Unless an agreement very strong and serious on the climate to be signed soon the result is very likely that the Earth will have warmed over the next hundred years 3C
Entire populations will be displaced by droughts and floods of salt water and agricultural production fall by less than one hundred years world certainly can not support as many people at this moment
lip So our Heads of State to say anything to avoid a warming of 2C ... 2C is that the problem is reflected by an increase of 3.5 C 3C Africa
This means that 55 million more people are at risk of famine in Africa
droughts could lead For their part to water shortages for 350 to 600 million people in more
An overall increase of 2C is condemned Africa to be cremated and not grow
So what happens now? Although it depends on another great player who was not in Copenhagen: you, us.
recent years, there are so many people I saw and heard how all this is horrible, wondering why our politicians and nobody does anything
Yet the number of people taking action is quite pathetic
demonstrations that have caused lift millions out in the streets has struggled to raise even just a few hundred
The result: the cost to our politicians have failed in Copenhagen is zero
But where are you?
NUCLEAR DOUBLE STANDARD
In 2004, the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency revealed that a Member State had violated a security agreement by carrying out uranium conversion and hidden illegal activities on the plutonium for decades
all these activities have raised serious doubts an interest in a program to develop nuclear weapons
The State has effectively lied to the IAEA when the agency began an investigation of these strange activities
Yet neither the U.S. nor Europe or anybody in the West has called for bombing the country or that it imposes an embargo on it
who I mean? Although the Korean government, not the North but the South.
was stirred heaven and earth because Iran has allegedly done the same things as to threaten the country of bombings in recent years
Except that is a major difference between the two countries
Iran has never enriched uranium to a level that might be of interest in the manufacture of nuclear bombs, but South Korea, quite
Yet IAEA has treated Iran as a state worthy of investigation in a perpetual ... and South Korea did not even have the slightest reprimand
Even more surprising is the fact that both cases were treated during the same week of November, 2004
Three months before publishing its report on the activities Nuclear, South Korea has confessed to transgress the same rules of the agreement which has been accused Iran of doing in 2003
So North Korea has done his research and experiments banned for 20 years ... one realizes in 2004 and nothing has been done
After all admitted in August 2004, South Korea has mounted an aggressive diplomatic offensive, to avoid any legal consequences
Being close to the administration Bush well say that the pressures have worked ... because in any event, Washington had eyes only for Iran
Yet U.S. officials knew very well that the enrichment activities uranium from South Korea were worse than Iran
So 11 November 2004 the IAEA has released its report stating that North Korea had made some wrong activity, without giving the background details ... Above all, there was nothing about the fact that this state was seeking to reach a production level of the bomb
And the subject was never raised by the IAEA subsequently
But like I said, The Agency report on Iran at the same time almost hysterical in comparison
The contrast between the treatment of cases of Iran and South Korea shows how the IAEA practice a system of two weights, two measures ... and that the agency is a shadow of political and military interests of the U.S. government
TORTURE AND MORALITY
Laurie Hawn, parliamentary secretary to Defence Minister Peter MacKay, dared to complain when a radio interview about all the criticism, frivolous, "she said, to his minister about the torture of Afghan detainees ...
Worse, she even went so far as to say that this question does not apply to Canadians
The central debate is whether Ottawa has consciously permitted to be transferred Afghan detainees to places where they may very well be tortured
is equivalent to a war crime ... there's nothing frivolous in there
We have seen with recent history in the U.S. where it will lead too complacent attitude toward torture
The Bush administration has admitted to approved interrogation techniques as torture in least thirty prisoners allegedly terrorist
This month, a poll showed for the first over the past 5 years a majority of Americans, $ 54, say that torture is justified against prisoners which we doubt there are terrorists
This tolerance of torture may have something to do with the attitude of the Obama administration and its refusal to investigate the actions of the Bush administration
Although Convention against Torture which the U.S. is a signatory since 1988, requires that we pursue such cases under
By refusing to act, Obama sent a message to Americans that basically it's not torture if worst
Then Obama gave a moving speech on the war in last place in the world should not do that: when to pick up his Nobel Peace
But back in Ottawa must give credit to the opposition who refused to remain silent about torture ...
The prohibition of torture is, remember, the branding that separates the barbarian world of the civilized world
Canada is, at this point, halfway between the two ... could manage to look good board in 2010 perhaps
NEW CAPITALISM
When modern capitalism has taken the form modulated by neoliberalism, we have been endlessly repeated that there was no alternative
Nothing was supposed to go wrong when capitalism had its globalization Financial
The first version of capitalism was based on households and firms
Across the economy, workers spend what they earn to meet household needs
paying for all the goods they produced in the process
And firms generated profits on their investments
During recessions, firms kept their investments and profits disappeared
workers lost their jobs and the economy deteriorated
After the Second World War the capitalists were the profit from of what they spent on new investment
Capitalists over-invested in good times and then retired during the bad times too
After the war, industrial economies and rolled back to hit lows sometimes
Keynesian capitalism emerged and state mechanisms have been established to stabilize the market and its many externalities
Since it was the investment that produced profits for the capitalists it was natural to seek new places to invest across borders in the process
Then came neoliberalism and capitalism since 2.0 now thirty years
States should promote the transfer from global capital, to insure investments against nationalization
And to protect the output against the rules of profit and gains tax
Government activity itself should be turned towards the creation of profits
is the wave of privatization that came afterwards
The global rules of free trade and protecting investments WTO was created to act as judge and jury
The IMF has played the role of pusher loans into debt in developing countries, the opening then the looting investors
The monetary circuit is at the heart of this rotten system ...
What happened under capitalism 2.0 is that the banks have lent only for consumption by workers and the new production by the capitalists
but to create portfolios and financial services without real values
And
when these loans were poorly transferred the global economy collapsed
By paying a portion of its debt, as did Canada, the government has lifted off of government bonds Market
What we need today are steady increases in public investment paid by the public debt and revenues strengthened for workers, especially those at lower levels
investments must be socialized democratized, and not let the ups and downs and the operations of speculators who do not contribute anything to society
It would be much better served if the banks were treated as traditional public services, producing a credit for low cost social production necessary
And have to go beyond capitalism to 2.0 do
0 comments:
Post a Comment