The climate change and its impact on democracy

A good opinion piece. On one end, the developed countries keep screaming that world keeps getting hotter & hotter, & the weather patterns keep getting drastic, which in turn, is throwing everything else out of whack; people's lives & their livelihoods are in severe danger. On the other hand, these same developed countries, while asking developing countries to not use fossil fuels, are using fossil fuels themselves, & have built an economic system, which is globalized, so it affects everyone around the world, & that economic system measures a country's development based on exploitation of earth's limited resources, esp. fossil fuels.

Companies of these developed countries get in contract with developing countries, where they exploit (dig up) these fossil fuels, without any regard to the climate change, due to them being cheaply available, & then export these products around the world & make a handsome profit. All the while, the developing countries, might be showing a good GDP & a positive Current Account figure, but they are also suffering due to those fossil fuels being used abundantly & adversely affecting the climate around the world. Their public is far susceptible to fighting each other for limited amount of healthy food, clean water, & clean air, & in absence of these items, these developing countries are also bear the responsibility of adverse health conditions of their public, due to unavailability of basic necessities of life.

As the author correctly suggests, the world economic system needs to separate itself from this usage & exploitation of fossil fuels. Countries should be measuring exports & current accounts based on export of solar & wind-generated energy, instead of oil & coal, & this change needs to happen now, because we have already crossed the red line, & in some places, weather patterns have drastically changed. Remember, today, it's them; tomorrow, it'll be us, fighting for healthy & clean food, clean water, & clean air.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/04/climate-change-impact-democracy-160403093028956.html

Climate change intensifies conflicts and creates mass migrations. Tens of millions of people are displaced owing to climate change, according to the United Nations. Severe droughts and heatwaves in Syria and the Middle East at large preceded the war, leaving people without jobs, food or hope - and migrating for their lives.
...

Climate change is a result of the Bretton Woods institutions and their deliberate policy to globalise the world economy based on extensive exports of natural resources from poor nations. This means petroleum, coal and gas, minerals, metals, forest products and meat.

Since their creation in 1945, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization have been based on hyper-exploitation of natural resources that they encouraged and even coerced from poor nations.

Low prices of natural resources have contributed a several fold increase in the wealth gap between the poor and the rich nations since World War II. This was the most successful period of industrialisation the world ever saw. It was based on extensive overconsumption of natural resources, and the direct result is climate change.
...

Almost a decade ago, the UN warned that "indigenous people are among the first to face the direct consequences of climate change owning their dependence upon, and close relationship with the environment and its resources." ...

Water is now one of the scarcest resources globally, according to the UN. The story is the same around the entire developing world.

What to do?

We need to replace the Bretton Woods system. They were the first global financial institutions the world ever saw. They fulfilled their mission and now they are dragging the world into an environmental disaster.

New global financial institutions are needed to get things right. We need to limit the exploitation of the planet's atmosphere, its bodies of water and its biodiversity. These are basic needs for human survival: we need clean water, clean air and food without which we cannot survive. All this is possible and must be done.

The limits on resource use can be flexible over time with the creation of equitable and efficient global markets for the global commons.

Limits on the use of water, air and biodiversity is what humanity needs to survive. This parallels the limits on emission of CO2 nation by nation, which was achieved by the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 and its carbon market that became international law in 2005.
...

The recent Paris Agreement - which has no emission limits and no teeth - must be improved. The establishment of a new system that respects our planets' vital resources for life will change the global capitalistic system - as they value the global commons, clean air, clean water and biodiversity. These have no economic value today, but it can be and should be done.

We need to decouple economic progress from fossil fuels if we are to survive as a species. The International Energy Agency recently reported that this is already starting. A detailed footprint and the attendant economic policies must redress economic growth to be harmonious with the world's resources and with the survival of humankind.

Graciela Chichilnisky is a professor of economics and of statistics at Columbia University and the Director of the Columbia Consortium for Risk Management.

"Idiotic Behaviours" by Monte Wolverton

"Idiotic Behaviours" - Monte Wolverton, US

"Earth Home" by Jen Sorensen

"Earth Home" - Jen Sorensen, US

Criminal Minds, S1E10 (quote 1)

This is my interpretation of this great quote by Sir Peter Ustinov.
  
When someone keeps pursuing their dreams, they keep raising the bar / stakes to achieve ever more of their dreams, to the point that they start to step onto others' dreams & start turning them into nightmares.
 
For instance, Steve Jobs had a dream of combining humans with beautiful & brilliant machines; to make human lives easier & more comfortable. But after achieving his first dream of making Apple 1, he raised the bar & moved on to his next dream of making Apple 2. Then, after achieving that dream, he moved on to his next dream of making Macintosh. After a few hiccups in his career, he then moved on to those colourful Macs, then iPods, iPhones, & iPads.

 
Reading / listening this story of a college-dropout-turned-entrepreneur is very inspiring for people around the world. But we forget how his "super abundance of dreams" turned the dreams of millions around the world into nightmares.
 
For example, cameras in iPhones (& then other OS based phones) destroyed the photographing film & camera businesses, like Kodak, for instance. Kodak employees were thinking of one day retiring into the sunset & seeing their kids go to colleges / universities & then be successful in their lives, but their dreams turned into nightmares, when Kodak went bankrupt.
 
We can take this example into any other latest tech entrepreneur's dreams & how his/her dreams created nightmares for millions of others; dreams of Travis Kalanick (Uber's CEO) & nightmares of taxi drivers, dreams of Kevin Systrom & Mike Krieger (Founders of Instagram) & nightmares of employees of photographic film & camera companies) etc.
 
We can also apply this quote to any one of the industries from tobacco to oil & gas to defence & military to financial services to even geopolitical affairs. Companies in all these industries, & politicians in the geopolitical arena, are trying to achieve the dreams of owners (single owner or multiple shareholders), management, employees, & politicians at all levels, at the expense of creating nightmares for millions around the world with climate change problems, wars, austerity measures, & adverse health conditions (i.e. cancers etc.).
 

Air Pollution costs Europe $1.6 Trillion a year in early deaths & disease, say WHO

Unfortunately, that day is not far when people will be buying portable personal oxygen tanks & breathers for themselves & their families. Going outside of their homes would require a little breather just like shoes & shirts are worn before getting outside of homes.

With the European countries pledging to end their dependence on fossil fuels in the next 85 years (by 2100), these oxygen tanks & breathers will be required in the next 25-40 years, especially with the way, the air pollution is spreading in large, metropolitan cities, from Shanghai to Delhi to London to Los Angeles.

We will be seeing "Lorax" being played in real-life around the world.

However, who will lose most adversely with these air pollution & climate change problems? The poor. The rich will buy their way out of these problems, but the poor, which are the general masses, won't be able to escape these problems all around the world. They can't relocate themselves or won't be able to buy loads & loads of oxygen tanks or breathers for themselves.

So, although, ONLY about half-a-million people prematurely died in Europe (only continent which is supposed to be leading the fight against climate change & pollution) due to air pollution, we will be seeing these tragedies played out in much larger numbers all over the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/28/air-pollution-costs-europe-16tn-a-year-in-early-deaths-and-disease-say-who

The financial cost of air pollution in Europe stands at more than $1.6tn (£1.5tn) a year, a study by the World Health Organisation (WHO) has found, equating to about a tenth of the GDP of the continent.
 
The costs come in the form of 600,000 premature deaths each year, & the sickness caused to hundreds of thousands of other people from preventable causes, such as pollution from small particles that come from the exhausts of diesel vehicles, & nitrogen dioxide, a gas that can inhibit breathing in vulnerable people.
 
The figures are from 2010, the latest year for which full data is available, & cover the whole of the European region, including non-EU states such as Norway & Switzerland, & are compiled by the WHO Regional Office for Europe & the Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development (OECD).
 
Zsuzsanna Jakab, regional director for Europe at the WHO, said: “Curbing the health effects of air pollution pays dividends. The evidence we have provides decision-makers across the whole of government with a compelling reason to act.”

In many east European countries, the WHO data shows, the economic costs of dirty air are more than 10% of their GDP. On absolute economic costs, the top 10 list is dominated by major economies including the UK, Germany & Italy.
 
In the UK, air pollution has become so bad in London that the European Union is to levy fines on local government, reflecting years in which the extent of pollution has been in excess of EU standards. The Supreme Court is expected to issue judgment ... on a case brought against the UK government for its breach of EU pollution limits.
 
The WHO report found that air pollution was the single biggest environmental health risk in Europe, with the damage from outdoor risks such as diesel exhaust pollution accounting for 482,000 deaths in 2012 from heart & respiratory diseases alone. The deaths or sickness of at least 1 in 4 Europeans can be traced to environmental pollution, according to the organisation.
 
In March, the European Environment Agency warned that hundreds of thousands of people would die prematurely over the next 2 decades from air pollution because of governments’ failure to act.

"Buying Halal Certified" by Peter Broelman

"Buying Halal Certified" - Peter Broelman, Australia

Breathing poison in the world's most polluted city

Whenever I come across these kinds of stories, about air pollution in major European or Asian cities, only one movie comes to my mind: Lorax.

As water is becoming a very precious commodity around the world, & companies like Nestle, are making billions from selling bottled water, there soon will be a time when clean oxygen tanks will be selling like bottled water.

First, food became unaffordable for millions around the world. Meat & meat-derived products are a luxury for millions of people who live below the poverty line (which in itself is very low). Even fruits, vegetables, & grains are becoming unaffordable now.

Next up was water. Well, be it US or Pakistan, Nigeria or Uganda, Sao Paulo (Brazil) or Peru, water is becoming the next gold or oil ... except, water is needed to live, unlike oil or gold. Bottled water is a billion-, or perhaps, trillion-$$$ business around the world.

After that, clean air is the next up to be bought & sold. Oxygen is even more precious than water or food. A human can live for days without food & a couple of days without water. Muslims fast in Ramadan around the world, during which, they don't eat or drink at all, during the day. But nobody can survive for a few minutes without oxygen.

Rich people will always find a way to survive, either by buying clean air or apparatus to clean the air in their homes & offices or moving to places with cleaner air. But what about the billions of poor around the world? They let go of their desires to have meat on their dinner tables. They are letting go of their desires to have clean water & hence, suffering terribly from drinking dirty & polluted water. But how will they let go of breathing clean air?

I am foreseeing a very bad future for the billions of poor, dying on the streets by the scores, because the rich have polluted the air. Poor didn't do anything to deserve such a painful life & death, but they will be the ones who will suffer the most.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32352722

Saharan dust, traffic fumes & smog from Europe may be clogging up London's air at present ... but in the world's most polluted city London's air would be considered unusually refreshing. That city is Delhi, the Indian capital, where air quality reports now make essential reading for anxious residents.
 
In London last week, the most dangerous particles - PM 2.5 - hit a high of 57 - that's nearly 6 times recommended limits.
 
Here in Delhi, we can only dream of such clean air.
 
Our reading for these minute, carcinogenic particles, which penetrate the lungs, entering straight into the blood stream - is a staggering 215 - 21 times recommended limits. And that's better than it's been all winter.
 
Until a few weeks ago, PM 2.5 levels rarely dipped below 300, which some here have described as an "air-pocalypse".
 
Like the rest of the world, those of us in Delhi believed for years that Beijing was the world's most polluted city.
 
But last May, the World Health Organization announced that our own air is nearly twice as toxic.
 
The result, we're told, is permanent lung damage, & 1.3 million deaths annually. That makes air pollution, after heart disease, India's second biggest killer.
 
And yet, it's only in the past 2 months as India's newspapers & television stations have begun to report the situation in detail that we've been gripped, like many others, with a sense of acute panic.
 
At first, we simply shut all our doors & windows & sealed up numerous gaps. No more seductively cool Delhi breezes could be allowed in.
 
We began checking the air quality index obsessively.
 
Then, we rushed out to buy pollution masks, riding around in our car looking like highway robbers. But our three-year-old wouldn't allow one anywhere near her face.
 
Despite our alarm, many Delhi-ites reacted with disdain. "It's just dust from the desert," some insisted. "Nothing a little homeopathy can't solve," others said.
 
But we weren't convinced.
 
When we heard that certain potted plants improve indoor air quality, we rushed to the nursery to snap up areca palms, & a rather ugly, spiky plant with the unappealing moniker, mother-in-law's tongue.
 
But on arrival, the bemused proprietor informed us that the American embassy had already purchased every last one.
 
In any case, we calculated that to make a difference, we needed a minimum of 50 plants.
 
..., we borrowed an air pollution probe from a friend to work out what progress, if any, we'd made.
 
Switching it on, our PM 2.5 levels registered an off-the-charts 44,000.
 
My husband scratched his head, consulting the manual.
 
"This says 3,000 is hazardous."
 
"It must be broken," I said.
 
But it wasn't, so we had to call in the experts.
 
One afternoon, a young man turned up with a small, free-standing air filter, specially modified for Delhi's dust. He pressed a button, which activated something called a "plasma cluster".
 
After 20 minutes, the numbers on our air monitor began to drop... precipitously.
 
My husband & I watched, ... as the readings went down from 44,000, to 20,000, then 11,000. Eventually, the probe settled around the 1,000 mark.
 
That's still worryingly high by global standards... & that's only the air inside our home. There's nothing we can do about the air outside.
 
The government has announced that it will install more air quality monitors in Delhi & that it will ban diesel-belching vehicles more than a decade old.
 
But that's a drop in the ocean compared to India's pro-growth economic policies, which still rely heavily on subsidised, dirty diesel.
 
The trouble is on many days, you can't see the pollution.
 
Right now outside my window is an intensely blue sky filled with flocks of lime green parakeets and frangipani trees just beginning to unfurl their waxy, fragrant blossoms & I find myself wondering if it isn't perfectly OK to take my kids out to play football.
 
But in the past few months, at least a dozen families we know have moved away, either to cleaner towns & cities, or outside of India.
 
And although I'm still lulled by the reassurances of long-time residents - "Don't worry - it's nothing," they chide - I am beginning to wonder if it isn't time to think about moving too.
 
Compared to Delhi right now, London & even Beijing are looking like pretty good options.

"Price War" by Chip Bok

"Price War" - Chip Bok, US

Climate-sceptic US senator given funds by BP PAC

I know it's no secret that climate-skeptic senators, congressmen, & ministers are financially supported by oil & gas companies, but what I am trying to show with this article is that this is the level of honesty, in the government leaders, in the so-called democratic Western hemisphere. The general public doesn't know how many millions are spent from top federal to municipal levels by lobbyists to change viewpoints & get their points across. I consider lobby money as "bribe". Whoever can give the biggest bribe gets the biggest piece of action.

How can these leaders, & esp. this senator, who is the environmental committee, while being a climate-skeptic & getting paid by BP (British Petroleum), do anything useful, climate-wise, for the public?

On top of that, BP is also trying to show to the public that they are working tirelessly towards alternative energy & a green planet. Corruption & lies at the government & business levels. Where is Transparency International now?

Shouldn't this be happening in the authoritarian & corrupt regimes in the Eastern hemisphere of the world? That's why, I always say that democracy in the West is only on its face; inside, it's no different from any authoritarian & corrupt regime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/22/climate-sceptic-us-politician-jim-inhofe-bp-political-action-committee

One of America’s most powerful & outspoken opponents of climate change regulation received election campaign contributions that can be traced back to senior BP staff, including chief executive Bob Dudley.

Jim Inhofe, a Republican senator from Oklahoma who has tirelessly campaigned against calls for a carbon tax & challenges the overwhelming consensus on climate change, received $10,000 (£6,700) from BP’s Political Action Committee (PAC).

Following his re-election, Inhofe became chair of the Senate’s environment & public works committee in January, & then a month later featured in news bulletins throwing a snowball across the Senate floor.

Before tossing it, the senator said: “In case we have forgotten – because we keep hearing that 2014 is the warmest year on record – it is very, very cold outside. Very unseasonal.”

The BP PAC is funded by contributions from senior US executives & company staffers who sent in contributions to the PAC totalling more than $1m between 2010 & 2014. Over the same period the committee paid out $655,000 to candidates, with more than 40 incumbent senators benefiting.

Yet, BP & Dudley have long called for world leaders to intervene & impose tough regulatory measures on the fossil fuel industry. Publishing its 98-page research paper, Energy Outlook 2035, last month, BP warned: “To abate carbon emissions further will require additional significant steps by policymakers beyond the steps already assumed.”

Dudley has personally given $19,000 since June 2011 to the BP PAC – very close to the $5,000-a-year maximum allowable by law. Although Dudley is resident in Britain, he is eligible to give via the BP PAC because he is a US national.

While the sums channelled to Inhofe’s campaign represent only a small proportion of the BP PAC’s election spending & the senator’s own campaign funds, they show how unafraid the committee has been to spread its donations to the most controversial candidates. According to the BP PAC website, it financially supports election candidates “whose views and/or voting records reflect the interests of BP employees”.

Records suggest Inhofe’s 2014 campaign was a funding priority for the BP PAC, ranking as one of the top recipients of committee funds when compared with disbursements to other serving senators.

This was despite Inhofe’s senate battle not being a close one. His opponent, Matt Silverstein, who Inhofe beat comfortably in last November’s midterms, had a tiny campaign war chest by comparison.

BP was asked whether it was appropriate for the PAC to make campaign contributions to such a vocal opponent of action on climate change, or for Dudley to be contributing towards such payments.

In a statement BP replied: “Voluntary donations [by staff] to the BP employees’ political action committee in the US are used to support a variety of candidates across the political spectrum & in many US geographies where we operate.

“These candidates have one thing in common: they are important advocates for the energy industry in the broadest sense.”

It added: “BP’s position on climate change is well known & is long-established. We believe that climate change is an important long-term issue that justifies global action.”

PACs exist in the US where companies & trade unions cannot give directly to the campaigns of those running for office. Instead funds are pooled from staff – often senior executives – into a PAC, & disbursed by a committee board, often in a manner sympathetic to the company’s lobby & other interests.

Other US oil industry leaders, including Exxon Mobil chief executive Rex Tillerson, make contributions to their own corporate PACs – money which in many cases can then be traced to Inhofe & other climate-sceptic politicians.

But Tillerson & other peers have not been as outspoken as BP & Dudley in calling for state intervention to tackle climate change, making the BP boss’s links to Inhofe campaign finance more controversial.

Last week Obama said it was “disturbing” that Inhofe had been made chair of the senate environment committee. In broader criticism of unnamed political opponents, he then went on to say: “In some cases you have elected officials who are shills for the oil companies or the fossil fuel industry. And there is a lot of money involved.”

Inhofe is unabashed about election campaign financing he receives from the industry. In his 2012 book, The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, he wrote: “Whenever the media asked me how much I have received in campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry, my unapologetic answer was ‘not enough’.”

According to data compiled from public filings by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), Inhofe’s campaign raised $4.84m between 2009 & 2014, with $1.77m coming from PACs, many of them sponsored by fossil fuel companies.

BP’s PAC was more active in the US 2014 election cycle than any other for more than a decade. Despite insisting it is non-partisan, 69% of contributions to federal election candidates in recent years have been to Republican politicians. This is a stronger bias than most other corporate PACs, according to the CRP.

There are, however, other leading recipients who have attracted criticism from climate change campaigners, including Republican House speaker John Boehner & fellow Republican, Sen Mike Enzi from Wyoming.

When asked his views on climate change in January, Boehner said: “We’ve had changes in our climate, although scientists debate the sources, in their opinion, of that change. But I think the real question is that every proposal out of this administration with regard to climate change means killing American jobs.”

“I don’t see [Obama] as trying to control pollution. I see him trying to put business out of business,” Enzi said last year.

Campaign contributions is just one aspect of US political engagement linked to BP & its staff. Filings show the oil & gas group spends millions on lobbying efforts.

The CRP classifies BP as a “heavy hitter”, ranking it among the top 140 biggest overall donors to federal elections since 1988. Its PAC ranks as the six largest such body with a sponsor company that is ultimately part of a non-US multinational.

"Climate Talks & Realities" by Paresh Nath, India

"Climate Talks & Realities" - Paresh Nath, India

Criminal Minds, S1E6 (quote)

One Possible Translation: For every particular thing there will be different conditions. So the irrationality of a thing does not imply it doesn't exist, but rather implies one of its conditions. There could be several different conditions of it. In other words, everything for which there is no evident proof does not mean it does not exist at all. It means you are looking at it in an irrational perspective.
 
Good quote to use when atheists say it's irrational to believe in a supernatural being or climate change deniers saying that there's no such thing as climate change or when people say that religion is the source of all problems / strife in the world or when oil & gas companies try to prove that fracking isn't causing any environmental & health problems or .......... .

 

"Global Business" by Paresh Nath

"Global Business" - Paresh Nath, India

A Dark Truth (Quote 5)

IMDB          RottenTomatoes          Wikipedia

The Lone Ranger (Quote 1)

Although, "The Lone Ranger" was an action / adventure movie, there were still a few interesting lines in it.
--------------------------------------------------
Looking at the condition of our world today, nature is indeed out of balance today ... all done by "modern" humans !!!

IMDB          RottenTomatoes          Wikipedia

Promised Land

When stakes are big for companies or gov'ts, they let the people think that they are in control through their votes but ultimately, they (companies, gov'ts) themselves are controlling the outcome, by any means necessary.

 

IMDB        RottenTomatoes          Wikipedia