World’s will to tackle climate
change is irresistible
Never before has human society been gripped by such a strong realisation of the need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels – and even change our lifestyles – in order to reduce emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, writes Rajendra Pachauri
LAST year marked a watershed in awareness of environmental issues, and in particular the challenge of climate change. Among many breakthroughs, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its fourth assessment report – laying out the science of global warming more clearly than ever – and the Nobel peace prize was co-awarded to the panel and Al Gore.
Today, however, many nations are facing recessionary trends and high rates of inflation. Oil prices are at an all-time high, and look likely to rise even higher. A price touching $140 per barrel is something no one could have predicted even six months ago, despite spiralling prices throughout 2007.
Food prices have also increased as a result of fundamental factors, including rapidly increasing demand for food grains against prolonged stagnation in supply. Increasing prices have hit some of the poorest countries most severely, particularly those that have low incomes and are largely dependent on imports for basic subsistence. According to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, annual food expenditure of the most vulnerable countries has more than doubled since 2000. In a number of these nations food now constitutes 70%-80% of family expenditure. It is not at all surprising that we’ve seen food riots and large-scale demonstrations.
In this context, there is growing worldwide concern that the economic slowdown could lead to a parallel slowdown in environmental progress, with governments less willing to advocate the hard steps essential for reducing greenhouse emissions. This is indeed a worry, but I see a ray of hope, as I believe that global society is seriously questioning whether today’s problems can be solved through short-term measures, as has been the case with routine ups and downs in the economy during past cycles. Could this lead to a widespread realisation that today’s problems are the result of fundamental flaws in past growth and development patterns? There are, in my view, two reasons to suggest that the answer could be yes.
First, the world has reached an unprecedented level of awareness of the science behind climate change, with the contents of the IPCC’s fourth assessment disseminated extensively by the media worldwide. A growing number of people – and not just typical environmentalists – now believe that climate change is not a concern for the distant future but something we are witnessing here and now. The cyclone that caused massive devastation in Burma and the extensive floods in Iowa, for instance, are linked in the public perception to climate change. Public concerns in several parts of the world have been heightened to such an extent that extreme weather events are invariably attributed to climate change. Never before has human society been gripped by such a strong realisation of the need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels – and even change our lifestyles – in order to reduce emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
Second, this existing resolve is being strengthened considerably by increasing oil prices, which prompted even a conservative Republican like President Bush to state that America is ‘addicted to oil’ and must switch to alternatives. Car manufacturers are already investing heavily in electric vehicles – which reduce oil dependency and emissions – and public transport systems are getting renewed attention. As some politicians in the UK and elsewhere have recently argued, with high oil prices the world can’t afford not to go green.
The possibility of a shift to other forms of energy is something that is not lost on the major oil producers. So it’s no surprise that Saudi Arabia has convened a summit of producers and consumers to see what needs to be done to stabilise oil prices. A continuing increase in prices would accelerate a move towards renewables, which would not support the interests of producer nations.
Based on all this, and on my discussions with policymakers, I believe the world is beginning to look at the deep underlying causes of its current problems, and is preparing for radical change. Barack Obama’s performance in the US presidential race is, I think, symptomatic of a widespread thirst for such a change.
What we have today is no routine downturn in the conventional economic cycle. It is, and is seen to be, the crossroads in human progress that compels a major turn in direction. I believe the current generation is ready for such a shift and is unlikely to be distracted for long by an economic downturn that emanates from serious systemic distortions in existing patterns of growth.
Rajendra Pachauri chairs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and is director general of The Energy & Resources Institute. This article first appeared in the UK’s Guardian Newspaper
What ails us?
If we are to survive as a self-respecting nation we need to bring about qualitative changes, both in our mindset and thinking. It may take a while but given our collective effort it is achievable with our existing human resources, writes Shamsher Chowdhury
BENGALIS are a unique blend of people. Most Bengalis thrive on jealousy and suspicion. They are jealous about the fortunes and well-being of others and suspicious about the ways of the others. We love to conspire against each other. We talk more than we act. One of the unique features of our culture is to be unduly concerned about what is happening at the neighbour’s rather than what is going on in our own household. We happen to be highly emotional. We are susceptible to public display of our emotions. We love to make mountain out of a mole. We talk too much and are very argumentative.
Thriving on little learning is yet another hallmark of our culture. We are quick to draw conclusions on any contentious issues without going into details. We form our opinion of others often on hearsay or on some preconceived notions. Most of us have closed minds and narrow in our vision. Admittedly, we do have a rich cultural heritage, but we often fail to see that there are other cultures that are as good as ours and may be richer. Even people with a certain level of education and social standing are unable to adjust themselves to the idea that the world of today is like a global village. Our cultural gurus continue to thrive on everything that is Bengali in character first and last. There is nothing wrong in it; however, unless we are also able to carve out our place in cross-cultural currents, our identity and recognition as a modern nation in the global community will be in jeopardy.
Bengalis talk too much: talk at cross-purposes, watching a movie, at all conceivable places including at funerals. We talk too fast and too loud. We talk so much that we have nearly lost an essential element in any civilised society – the spirit of listening. We often consider listening to other’s points of view as demeaning and meaningless. At the waiting room of a doctor’s chamber, standing in a queue at a bus stop, waiting at the railway station or even sitting in a park, one thing you are sure to confront is free advice. We love to give unsolicited advice to each other, irrespective of whether or not one is qualified to do so.
My experience tells me that the most common advice you are likely to receive is advice on medical matters. Being somewhat disabled I am unable to move about without the help of a walking stick. Invariably, whenever I sit on a bench to catch my breath, someone sitting beside me would enquire into to the causes and extent of my ailment and express sympathies with my condition. So far so good but when he comes up with a list of medical advice, including prescribing drugs, I begin to feel uncomfortable. One day, I politely asked one such gentleman as to what his vocation was; he replied that he had a small plastic factory in the old part of the metropolis.
Bengalis with hardly any exception thrives on the idea that he or she is an expert on politics and once on the seat of power would be able to resolve all the problems facing the country. Over the past two decades or so, the matter has become rather acute. At home, inside your car while travelling, at crossroads, at railway stations, at parks, inside mosques between prayers we are talking about politics. As a nation, we are incapable of collective thinking for collective good. We are also incapable of self-criticism – an essential element of a progressive society.
Most Bengalis – from the ordinary to the extraordinary – suffer from this mindset that they deserve more than what they have achieved and others have deprived them of their due share. We are always looking for the shortest route to success. More than most of us suffer from this notion that the world owes us a living.
On the lighter side of it, all Bengalis have poor sense of time. One walks into your home any time of the day unannounced with a broad grin in his or her face and you too are expected to reciprocate. We suffer from a poor sense of time management. We have a tendency of arriving at work places late. Incidentally, this is quite common amongst people in authority, particularly noticeable amongst senior members of the civil service.
Forgive my saying so, we as a nation are chaotic and undisciplined. Most of us are incapable of thinking beyond family levels. We have serious dearth of patriots. We always stand in readiness to receive but seldom ready to give. While we continue to be high on democracy and democratic practices, we have seen little of that in practice. Although most people would like to put the entire blame on our politicians and political leaderships, I feel the people, especially high-profile civil society members and intellectuals, are also to blame. Slowly and surely, our mindset is getting closer to that of the Ayub- and Musharraf-style administration. Ironically enough, right at this moment, the people of Pakistan are struggling to come out of that psyche. It is also my fear that in time to come we may find ourselves entrapped in the political philosophy once pursued by Ziaul Huq.
Having dealt with the various aspects that, to my mind, are hindering our progress a nation, I now feel that it is my obligation to focus on our strong points.
As people we are extremely resilient. Often one wonders, not just the people of the country but also people around the world, as to how the people of a country like Bangladesh being subjected to nature’s extreme fury year after year continue to smile and go on with their lives, particularly those living in the coastal areas of the country. In this context, it is important to note that we have already developed a kind of expertise in disaster management that has earned global recognition.
Our womenfolk have come a long way in making their contributions to all spheres of our development interventions. Our agriculture labour force is one of the best. As a matter of fact, our unskilled and half-skilled labour force is an entity to be reckoned with. Our literature is rich. Ours is perhaps is the only country in world whose identity in the international community is based on our mother tongue.
In recent times we have also made considerable progress in the world of painting. The works of our painters and artists are catching up with the standards of other countries of Asia and the region in particular. We can also pride ourselves on the excellence of our theatre art. Our performers have earned laurels both at home and abroad A Bangladeshi has been elected to the position of vice-chairman of the prestigious International Theatre Institute based in Paris.
With all that has been said one still wonders as to why we continue to be branded as a near failed state? There is no one answer to this. The first and foremost that comes to my mind is that we have a serious dearth of patriots in this country; second, poor political leadership over the years; third, deteriorating state of professional skills in our civil service and administration; and fourth, evident lack of commitment and readiness on the part of our intellectuals, civil society members and the affluent section of our population to come forward and contribute more to nation building activities. This privileged class of people has been mostly self-serving and engaged in activities leading to self-preservation more than anything else.
If we are to survive as a self-respecting nation we simply must seriously address the issues raised here including bringing about qualitative changes both in our mindset and thinking. It may take a while but I do most sincerely believe that given our collective effort it is achievable with our existing human resources.
When will that come about, I do not know. Your guess is as good as mine.
Iraq task, Iran risk
The decisions taken by the United States and Israel over the next four months will influence events in the Middle East for the next four years and beyond, writes Paul Rogers
THE architects of the ‘war on terror’ in the George W Bush administration will soon be leaving office. But the four months until the United States presidential election on November 4 could be momentous. In Iraq and Iran, what happens in the next four months – or does not happen – will shape events in the next four years and even beyond.
The current level of conflict in Iraq is lower than for most of the period since the start of the war in March-April 2003, but it continues at a substantial level. The United States military’s losses have also been on a declining trend, but it still lost twenty-nine people in June, an increase from nineteen in May. But this is far from the only index of the fragility of the current security environment, as two recent incidents and one longer-term factor show.
The first incident is a US military raid on June 27 on the town of Janaja in southern Iraq that killed a civilian reported to be a relative of Iraq’s prime minister Nouri al-Maliki. The operation involved sixty US soldiers as well as Apache helicopter-gunships; did not include Iraqi units; and was apparently conducted without the knowledge of the provincial authorities, even though Karbala province was supposed to have been under Iraqi control. The response of the Iraqis was, not surprisingly, sharp.
The second is a suicide-bombing attack in Anbar province on June 28 that killed twenty-three people including three US marines, which an al-Qaeda insurgent group said it had perpetrated. The attack was targeted against local Sunni leaders who were supporters of the anti-al-Qaeda ‘awakening movement’, and the militant responsible had been a member of the movement. It was, in short, an ‘inside job’.
The trend is the construction right across Baghdad of a network of walls designed to separate armed factions and communities. These have contributed to the decrease in violence, but have also produced a prison-like environment that is resented by many citizens.
The Iraq outlook
Beyond the immediate security environment, two large developments are a signal of Washington’s current strategic thinking in relation to Iraq. The first is the opening up of Iraqi oil reserves to thirty-five companies in a bidding competition to increase oil production. At the outset the process involves six oilfields, though five short-term contracts are also being offered to American and European companies.
The opening of the Iraqi oil industry to private companies represents a major departure from the nationalised industry of the Saddam Hussein era. Such a process was an early aim of the Coalition Provisional Authority established in the wake of the US invasion as the key instrument of US political control in the post-Saddam flux. Many believed and more hoped that a partially functioning Iraqi government has been able to take an independent line on this issue, though it now appears that the process of privatisation has been closely overseen by a group of American advisers. This group itself, moreover, was led by a team from the US state department, thus giving the George W Bush administration a direct role in the process.
This series of columns has consistently argued that the primary purpose of the termination of the Saddam Hussein regime was less to gain control of Iraq’s oil reserves, even if they were around four times the size of US domestic reserves; rather, it was the location of Iraq in a region containing nearly two-thirds of all of the world’s oil that was more significant. Nonetheless, the manner in which Iraq’s oil is coming under external control does begin to give some credence to those who claim a more direct connection between Iraq’s oil and the decision to go to war.
The plan to expand Iraqi oil production carries a real concern for its designers: that the pipelines and processing plants will be vulnerable to the kind of insurgent activity that inflicted such enormous economic damage in 2004-05. This fear may be connected with the second large development – the plan to maintain US military forces at current levels for at least until mid-2009. The last of the five additional combat-brigades that formed the year-long US ‘surge’ is now departing the country, but plans are already underway to bring 30,000 fresh troops into the country early in 2009. These will replace existing contingents in a routine fashion, but what is less remarked is their effect on overall US deployment; namely, that 142,000 troops will remain in Iraq, a number actually 7,000 more than were present before the surge began in February 2007.
It is always possible that violence will decrease to the extent that further withdrawals can take place, but the Pentagon is not currently planning for this. Its calculation is most likely based on a real fear that many of the insurgents are lying low and will return to the conflict in the coming months. If this proves correct, then a likely target will be Iraq’s oil installations just as foreign companies are moving in. This too will become clear by November 2008.
The Iran prospect
The Pentagon’s current preparation for a major long-term military presence in Iraq is accompanied by a sharpening of rhetoric over the putative threat posed by Iran’s nuclear plans. Most of this is at present emanating from some Israeli commentators and some of the Washington-based think-tanks and policy groups that identify themselves with what they imagine Israel’s national interest to be.
Most analysts are aware of the capacity of the Iranians to respond to any military attack by the United States or Israel in numerous ways, by (for example) escalating tension in Iraq or engineering a massive spike in crude oil prices. This often leads them as a result to discount the risk of an attack on Iran. Against this, some circles in Washington argue that Iran’s capacity to react has been much overplayed; in this view, Iran is actually far weaker than is commonly appreciated. The conclusion is that now may be a good time to demonstrate resolve by targeting Tehran’s nuclear facilities, however limited they might currently be.
What is always to be remembered in weighing the effect of these nuances is that there is a bottom-line for Israel: namely, there must never be another country in the region that has nuclear weapons – deterrence must work only one way if Israel is to be secure. In addition, a strong thread within hard-line Israeli political thinking in the present political conjuncture (though opinion on the matter is not uniform) is that a Barack Obama presidency would be bad news. He may have sounded hard-line over Iran in his speech to AIPAC on June 4, but Obama is seen as a highly intelligent politician with a worrying streak of independence in him.
It is troubling, then – a matter of concern to those in Israel and Washington who seek to resolve the Iran issue by force – that Obama is ahead of John McCain in the opinion polls. Perhaps, in such uncertain and unpredictable circumstances, now is the time to pre-empt Iranian nuclear developments – whatever the costs – rather than wait for an Obama victory and the nightmare prospect of talking to the enemy?
These, then, are the four months that will determine the future of the region and much of the world – not least the long-term security of the state of Israel – for years ahead. Iran and Iraq at the heart of present concern, though the security deterioration in other areas deserves to be noted: Afghanistan and Pakistan. Whether the incoming White House tenant faces the ashes of a new landscape of war or merely the fallout of the old one, the world is in for a long and bumpy ride.
Opendemocracy, July 3. Paul Rogers is professor of peace studies at Bradford University, northern England. The article has been edited.
Bold step
The major political parties should not participate in local government polls as the incumbent military-driven government has no constitutional right to hold local body polls ahead of national election. It seems that the government is well on their track of clinging to power for a longer period and the decision of holding local government polls first is an important part of that scheme. As we have learnt from history, every military government has tried to organise its followers through the holding of local body polls to stay in power for a longer period. So the decision of the BNP-led allies to boycott local body polls is a bold one.
Nazir Sabri
Kachkura,uttarkhan, Dhaka.
Tired
I join MH Khan (June 30) in standing against slogans such as ‘dreams of Bangabadhu’ and ‘dreams of Zia’. It is jonogonism practised by jonogonists defending the netri system. Like MH Khan, I too am tired of what Hasina and Khaleda always say.
It is time for the Awami League and the BNP to grow up and practise real democracy. We don’t need old faces with old dreams. We need new faces and new blood. It would be our collective failure if we again end up choosing between the likes of Hasina and Khaleda!
Ezajur Rahman
Kuwait
It is their legal right
It is a matter of frustration that 20 per cent of the garments owners still don’t pay minimum wages to the workers. These workers are the ones who toil day and night, contributing immensely to the national exchequer. Then why will they be deprived of their legal rights?
During these days of price hike and economic hardship, it is absolutely impossible for them to cope up with the present situation and meet ends meet. It is the workers’ legal right to get the salary as the garments owners themselves have fixed it and given assurances to the government to apply it immediately. It’s been almost two years and still so many factories are yet to comply with the pledge. It is indeed time for the government to take stern action against the defaulting factory owners.
Md. Ariful Islam,
Stamford University, Dhaka
Zimbabwe situation
Government of national unity is the only answer to Zimbabwe crisis but is Mugabe ready to give the opposition leader a senior position in the very government?
Sadc, Au and Un should just come together and tell Mugabe that he lost the first elections and must step down without further delay.
Zerin
USA
* * *
Zimbabwe needs genuine free democratic elections, not a ‘government of national unity’ with Mugabe’s unelected people, which would no doubt grant immunity from prosecution to itself.
Shahar Alam
Via e-mail
|
Next on Quick Comments
| |
a. SAARC plan of action on climate change adopted (New Age, July 4)
b. 1,865 sign up for Aug 4 local govt polls (New Age, July 4)
c. Nine killed in Cox’s Bazar landslides (New Age, July 4)
|
‘Quick Comments’, (01713-065-354, letters@newagebd.com, quickcomments@gmail.com ) seeks the readers’ instant reaction ondifferent national and international issues. Comments should be brief, not exceeding 150 words. Submissions should mention ‘Quick Comments’ and will be subject to editing for quality and clarity..
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
