We Won’t Get Fooled Again
Part 1
Developed countries are making all the efforts to have Caribbean countries sign financial and banking agreements or have them black listed. These efforts are all geared towards securing their interests to the detriment of these countries. They are only seeking to undermine the advantage that these jurisdictions may have in the banking sector.
It has been framed as trying to prevent illegal tax havens from proliferating. Countries have been black listed. Ironically countries with even less transparent banking rules have not been black listed. Essentially developed countries are trying to entrench ways and means of gaining unfettered access to these jurisdictions banking information while not reciprocating.
The ratification of the agricultural protocol has forced countries to move towards the financial sector since they have failed in agriculture. Considering the theory of comparative advantage these are efforts to undermine the distinct advantage that these countries have due to their autonomy.
In an effort to curb the out flow of finances from their economies developed countries are framing the issue as negatively as possible, describing them as tax haven problems, necessary for tracking illegal drug financing and terrorism financing. In the process they are trying to track and control the flow of the finances into these regions.
They are essentially gaining access to our banking information and not reciprocating. If Europe wants access to information the same rules should apply to Switzerland and in the US the same rules should apply to Nevada.
We Won’t Get Fooled Again
Part 2
There is a song that says we won’t get fooled again, and I think it is apt when it comes to discussing the climate change situation also. All Industries are heavily dependent on Carbon fossil fuels, those making profits from it are responsible for fighting against the idea that that the earth’s atmosphere is increasing in temperature.
Imagine if roughly about nine years ago that All Gore had won the US election and then imagine that instead of a concerted push to secure new sources of fossil fuels, there was a movement towards green and cleaner energy sources. This would probably be the age we all would already be leaving in instead of a fight to determine whether we should cut down on the amount of pollution that we are spewing into the earth’s atmosphere.
Providing that the nay Sayers are correct and that the evidence is not conclusive enough to prove that the earth’s atmosphere is actually increasing in temperature, then I would propose that we go on ahead with business as usual continuing to burn as much and if not more fossil fuels than we have done over the last decade or two. Assuming that they are correct and there is no discernable increase in the earth’s atmospheric temperature, what harm could possibly come to us.
As it stands the majority of the earth’s population have not achieved the same levels of development as OECD countries. Imagine that all the able citizens of India, China and Africa all want to and will achieved the so called American dream and are living in a two car household with two children. With increase in development there would also come a corresponding increased negative impact on the global environment. Our movement towards more and more development only means that there will be a greater impact by humankind on the environment.
I challenge anyone to say that there is not any negative effect on the environment, whether it is an increase or decrease in atmospheric or the earth’s surface temperature. It is a fact that we are having an impact on the earths environment, weather we are unable to definitely ascertain the exact effects that are being manifested what we are aware of is that our use of fossil fuels greatly contribute to changing the balance of the global ecosystem.
The argument to do nothing is mute; those trying to stall any immediate and comprehensive action are doing so at the peril of future generations because they are banking on the fact that the lifeline of the world’s economy is tethered to big oil. And maybe politicians are banking on the fact that their political careers will probably be over by then and probably they will have moved on from this earths as well.
Anything that would jeopardize the energy sector is not likely to be pushed through, agreed upon and ratified by the global community in a timely fashion. A global environmental conscience appears in vogue to most people living on earth, as overwhelmingly the global community appears to show concern for the environment, but any progress on stopping climate change is being fought against by a select few namely Big Oil.
It was only after the fall of Gm and billions of American and Canadian tax payers’ money did the auto industry realize that gas guzzlers were unsustainable. By then consumers were making more prudent choices and had switched to more fuel efficient vehicles, forcing the company into problems.
Vulnerable States susceptible to increased occurrences of natural disasters are making overtures to Developed States asking for promises of support to harbour the expected environmentally caused negative impacts. Our global dependence on fossil fuels however mitigates the prospects of any concerted effort in the immediate future to stop climate change. I am certain that the Copenhagen talks will get sabotaged. The undercurrents of which will probably be coming from the energy sector. Supported and championed by a select group of powerful States, who are reluctant to change in the current global economic environment.
;)
