For years, the bumper-sticker slogan of the environmental movement has been: "Think globally, act locally."
As 2011 dawns, the global perspective is increasingly lost in immediate concerns about the economy while local action seems stronger than ever.
Local issues including clean water and air, recycling and transit have become givens for generations of Canadians who came of age after activism went mainstream in the 1960s and '70s. In Canadian cities, no one puts up with visible polluters any more. Recycling is taken for granted, cloth shopping bags have elbowed aside plastic and bike clothes are the new chic in some circles.
But the momentum for action on climate change, the primary focus of international environmental action for the past 15 years, has stalled.
In the recent midterm elections in the United States, the environment was rarely on the radar. The issues were the economy, jobs, health care and security. One of the big losers was any prospect that the U.S. would be going ahead with a cap and trade system for controlling greenhouse gas emissions.
The legislation that would have instituted cap and trade was already stalled before the midterm elections over concerns that it could kill jobs and the incoming Republican tide will likely wash away any vestiges of enthusiasm for further action.
More than half of the incoming Republican legislators, who are changing the balance of power in Washington, are on the record as being skeptical about climate change science.
The Conservative government in Ottawa is taking its cues on the issue from Washington. Ministers argue that we'd be risking Canadian jobs if we take action to reduce emissions that makes us less competitive with the U.S.
The waning interest in concrete action on climate change isn't found only in North America.
The lack of progress in the latest round of UN-sponsored climate change negotiations in Cancun reflected the general lack of interest in the issue among nations that are struggling through the continuing economic slowdown.
In British Columbia, Premier Gordon Campbell has made the fight against climate change a centrepiece of his regime, often to the discomfort of many in his caucus and his supporters in the business community.
With Campbell's departure early in the new year, it's not clear whether the Liberal government will be as enthusiastic about pushing forward with initiatives that can be construed as adding costs to operating a business in B.C. Some of the candidates for his job have already called for a pause on both cap and trade and further increases in the carbon tax.
What will continue is the progress being made through the pursuit of energy efficiency, driven by U.S. concerns over strategic concerns as well as fear of sharply rising energy costs.
Over the past two decades, significant gains have been made by automakers in improving the efficiency of the vehicles they manufacture.
Plug-in electric cars, which could have a significant advantage in British Columbia -- where most of our electricity is generated from water power -- are expected to be players for the next few years, but even small advances in the fuel efficiency of more conventional vehicles translate into millions of litres saved and carbon dioxide that won't be released in to the atmosphere.
The new mood in Washington is expected to take some of the heat off the Alberta oilsands, which remain the single most visible environmental issue in Canada. The oilsands, called tarsands by their opponents, are the target of multiple campaigns by the well-funded and organized international environment movement. But they also have powerful proponents among Americans who view the oilsands as a friendly source in a world where much of the available energy is controlled by more hostile regimes.
The energy battleground in British Columbia will be the $5.5-billion Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, which calls for a pair of pipelines from Alberta to the deepwater port of Kitimat.
Environmentalists and many first nations oppose the project on several grounds: the potential of a breach in the pipeline, the risk of a tanker accident and general opposition to anything connected to the oilsands.
Our need for energy will also be at the centre of what will be a continuing battle over the proposed Site C dam on Peace River, as well as controversial run-of-river hydro projects.
The fight over fish farms will also continue to fester, with part of the focus on the Cohen Commission, which is looking into what was supposed to be the collapse of the sockeye stocks before the massive run this fall raised even more questions about what is really going on.
Source: http://communities.canada.com
Showing posts with label recovery economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label recovery economy. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Monday, January 03, 2011
India’s stature in global system
In the year that went by, India’s foreign policy has been largely dictated by its effort to secure more partners around the world. Especially in the Asian continent, evident from the regularity of high-level diplomatic visits. It has been New Delhi’s intent to create a zone of friendship around. With the phenomenal rise of neighbouring China with which India has not had the best of relations, the Manmohan Singh Government has been serious about increasing India’s foothold.
As the world takes baby steps toward securing the still fragile global economic recovery, the importance of countries like India has undoubtedly risen. In the changed circumstances, the salience of groups like the G20 of which India is a primary member, have dramatically increased. Moreover, the country’s economic performance and the opportunities in store for any country to do business with India have increasingly attracted attention.
Significantly, it is in this context, that the visit from the leaders of all the five permanent members of the UN Security Council assumes importance. The Russian President Medvedev’s recent visit completed a full circle. His visit followed that of Britain’s David Cameron, the US President Barack Obama, France’s Nicolas Sarkozy and China’s Premier Wen Jiabao.
Apart from the symbolic importance, all the leaders who came calling in 2010 were men on a mission. They meant business and concluded their visits conversing on a host of issues concerning both sides and re-assessing the relations besides inking a lot of agreements spanning a lot of areas.
Among the P-5 members, India has had the most complex and difficult relationship with its neighbour and rising power China. The two countries share a protracted border dispute and do not see eye to eye on a number of vital issues, including the culpability of Pakistan for heightened anti-India terrorism.
But, this does not take away the kind of traction that India has been able to gain in its relationship with the major powers in the elite club of the Security Council. Apart from China, all the other four countries in the P-5 including the US which had been dilly-dallying has come out strongly in favour of a permanent seat for India in an expanded Security Council in the future.
China has maintained a rehearsed and rather lame assurance. The most that Beijing continues to say and one that was repeated in the joint communique recently is, “China attaches great importance to India's status in international affairs as a large developing country, understands and supports India's aspiration to play a greater role in the United Nations, including in the Security Council.”
But, New Delhi should not be hugely concerned about this because it also emphasizes Beijing’s insecurity of a rising India. Besides, the issue is not something that will pay immediate dividends. It serves like a secure investment that paves the way for understanding in a number of other strategic issues.
The fact that Britain, France, Russia and the US support India’s aspirations for a permanent seat does not mean that the reform would happen in the near future. However, it surely gives the message that for these countries, New Delhi is a responsible international player and the presence of India in the club would not be a liability for them.
In the field of civilian nuclear energy, India has come out quite a winner. The exception again is the Chinese side that concentrates on doing nuclear business with Pakistan, a country with a shoddy non-proliferation record. Wherein its own nuclear scientist AQ Khan was exposed as a czar of the nuclear black market.
Otherwise, major countries, including erstwhile skeptics have come around to either signing or at the least discussing the possibility of cooperating with New Delhi in the field of civilian nuclear energy. Nuclear commerce with India is the buzz in the international system and the niche and cooperation that follows it should be used as a launching pad for extending cooperation in other areas.
In fact, the India-US ‘123’ agreement really served as the ignition, which combined with the Nuclear Suppliers Group waiver (NSG) led to the windfall. France came out as one of the earliest and strongest supporters of India joining international nuclear commerce. The synergy between Russia as a major energy producing country and India as a major energy consuming country is the catchphrase for India-Russia cooperation in this field. Indeed the results are encouraging.
Undoubtedly, as expected, the Nuclear Liability Bill has raised some concerns among foreign countries hoping to invest in India’s nuclear energy market. The good part is that countries wishing to do business with India have not taken strong positions against the Bill. This gives New Delhi some space to negotiate as to how its domestic concerns can be balanced with the demands of international nuclear commerce. This issue has to be worked out in a graduated manner that will not hamper the vital interests of any side.
Also, as the issue of terrorism becomes ubiquitous in all bilateral and multilateral, New Delhi, intends to make other major power acknowledge the seriousness of this threat in the Indian context. Whereby, we saw a general pattern where the burgeoning economic partnership between India and China did not translate in optimistic gestures on other issues of core interest.
Apart from the Chinese Premier, other leaders of the P-5 including President Obama were quite categorical in their condemnation of the existence of safe havens across the border. True, be it Britain, France, Russia or the US, there will be differences and opposing viewpoints on many issues, expected in any broad-based relationship, but at this juncture there seems to be no conflict of interest on any core issue.
But, on the Chinese front, there are some hardcore issues that could seriously impede the relationship. Adding to the inevitable competition between the two rising powers in the same geographic region, China through the stapled visa issue has continuously poked at the question of India’s sovereignty.
This time around, India took the right move towards a restraint aggression by diverting from the norm and not making any reference to Chinese sovereignty on Tibet and the ‘One China' policy, so dear to Chinese ears. The burgeoning economic relationship between New Delhi and Beijing is often flaunted as the hallmark of ties but in this department too, all the huge bilateral trade figures are nothing more than a chimera until the trade imbalance is not corrected.
So, as 2010 came to an end and India’s stature in the international system became more cemented than ever, its ties with the major powers of the world increased in some substantial areas. But as a country that aspires to sit at the high table of diplomacy and make its viewpoints counted in international decision-making, India should be more pro-active in its foreign policy making.
The milestones achieved last year should serve as launch pads toward substantial engagements in the years ahead. And an opportunity to better assess the loopholes that could hinder India’s ambitions in the future.
Monish Tourangbam, INFA
Source: http://www.centralchronicle.com
As the world takes baby steps toward securing the still fragile global economic recovery, the importance of countries like India has undoubtedly risen. In the changed circumstances, the salience of groups like the G20 of which India is a primary member, have dramatically increased. Moreover, the country’s economic performance and the opportunities in store for any country to do business with India have increasingly attracted attention.
Significantly, it is in this context, that the visit from the leaders of all the five permanent members of the UN Security Council assumes importance. The Russian President Medvedev’s recent visit completed a full circle. His visit followed that of Britain’s David Cameron, the US President Barack Obama, France’s Nicolas Sarkozy and China’s Premier Wen Jiabao.
Apart from the symbolic importance, all the leaders who came calling in 2010 were men on a mission. They meant business and concluded their visits conversing on a host of issues concerning both sides and re-assessing the relations besides inking a lot of agreements spanning a lot of areas.
Among the P-5 members, India has had the most complex and difficult relationship with its neighbour and rising power China. The two countries share a protracted border dispute and do not see eye to eye on a number of vital issues, including the culpability of Pakistan for heightened anti-India terrorism.
But, this does not take away the kind of traction that India has been able to gain in its relationship with the major powers in the elite club of the Security Council. Apart from China, all the other four countries in the P-5 including the US which had been dilly-dallying has come out strongly in favour of a permanent seat for India in an expanded Security Council in the future.
China has maintained a rehearsed and rather lame assurance. The most that Beijing continues to say and one that was repeated in the joint communique recently is, “China attaches great importance to India's status in international affairs as a large developing country, understands and supports India's aspiration to play a greater role in the United Nations, including in the Security Council.”
But, New Delhi should not be hugely concerned about this because it also emphasizes Beijing’s insecurity of a rising India. Besides, the issue is not something that will pay immediate dividends. It serves like a secure investment that paves the way for understanding in a number of other strategic issues.
The fact that Britain, France, Russia and the US support India’s aspirations for a permanent seat does not mean that the reform would happen in the near future. However, it surely gives the message that for these countries, New Delhi is a responsible international player and the presence of India in the club would not be a liability for them.
In the field of civilian nuclear energy, India has come out quite a winner. The exception again is the Chinese side that concentrates on doing nuclear business with Pakistan, a country with a shoddy non-proliferation record. Wherein its own nuclear scientist AQ Khan was exposed as a czar of the nuclear black market.
Otherwise, major countries, including erstwhile skeptics have come around to either signing or at the least discussing the possibility of cooperating with New Delhi in the field of civilian nuclear energy. Nuclear commerce with India is the buzz in the international system and the niche and cooperation that follows it should be used as a launching pad for extending cooperation in other areas.
In fact, the India-US ‘123’ agreement really served as the ignition, which combined with the Nuclear Suppliers Group waiver (NSG) led to the windfall. France came out as one of the earliest and strongest supporters of India joining international nuclear commerce. The synergy between Russia as a major energy producing country and India as a major energy consuming country is the catchphrase for India-Russia cooperation in this field. Indeed the results are encouraging.
Undoubtedly, as expected, the Nuclear Liability Bill has raised some concerns among foreign countries hoping to invest in India’s nuclear energy market. The good part is that countries wishing to do business with India have not taken strong positions against the Bill. This gives New Delhi some space to negotiate as to how its domestic concerns can be balanced with the demands of international nuclear commerce. This issue has to be worked out in a graduated manner that will not hamper the vital interests of any side.
Also, as the issue of terrorism becomes ubiquitous in all bilateral and multilateral, New Delhi, intends to make other major power acknowledge the seriousness of this threat in the Indian context. Whereby, we saw a general pattern where the burgeoning economic partnership between India and China did not translate in optimistic gestures on other issues of core interest.
Apart from the Chinese Premier, other leaders of the P-5 including President Obama were quite categorical in their condemnation of the existence of safe havens across the border. True, be it Britain, France, Russia or the US, there will be differences and opposing viewpoints on many issues, expected in any broad-based relationship, but at this juncture there seems to be no conflict of interest on any core issue.
But, on the Chinese front, there are some hardcore issues that could seriously impede the relationship. Adding to the inevitable competition between the two rising powers in the same geographic region, China through the stapled visa issue has continuously poked at the question of India’s sovereignty.
This time around, India took the right move towards a restraint aggression by diverting from the norm and not making any reference to Chinese sovereignty on Tibet and the ‘One China' policy, so dear to Chinese ears. The burgeoning economic relationship between New Delhi and Beijing is often flaunted as the hallmark of ties but in this department too, all the huge bilateral trade figures are nothing more than a chimera until the trade imbalance is not corrected.
So, as 2010 came to an end and India’s stature in the international system became more cemented than ever, its ties with the major powers of the world increased in some substantial areas. But as a country that aspires to sit at the high table of diplomacy and make its viewpoints counted in international decision-making, India should be more pro-active in its foreign policy making.
The milestones achieved last year should serve as launch pads toward substantial engagements in the years ahead. And an opportunity to better assess the loopholes that could hinder India’s ambitions in the future.
Monish Tourangbam, INFA
Source: http://www.centralchronicle.com
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Greece unveils austerity budget
The Greek government has unveiled an austerity budget that aims to cut its 2011 public deficit to 7.4% of the nation's annual economic output or GDP.
If achieved, this would mean a 5bn-euro ($6.8bn; £4.3bn) reduction on Greece's projected 9.4% deficit for 2010.
Under the budget plans, the government will cut health and defence spending, and increase the sales tax on most retail items from 11% to 14%.
Greece had to accept a 110bn-euro ($150bn; £93bn) rescue deal in May.
This sum - which is being given to the country in three stages - has come from the European Union and International Monetary Fund.
To get the money, Greece had to agree to enforce substantial spending cuts to reduce both its public deficit and overall government debt, which are among the largest in Europe.
The country's finance department also said that the Greek economy would contract by 4.2% this year and by a further 3% in 2011, higher than its previous estimate of a 2.6% slowdown next year.
The budget also reveals that the Greek government is to sell stakes in state-owned companies, and even four Airbus A340 planes that it owns.
The sale of organisations to be partly or fully privatised included rail operator Trainose, mining firm Larko, gas operator DEPA, and defence group Hellenic.
Cource: BBC
www.bbc.co.uk
If achieved, this would mean a 5bn-euro ($6.8bn; £4.3bn) reduction on Greece's projected 9.4% deficit for 2010.
Under the budget plans, the government will cut health and defence spending, and increase the sales tax on most retail items from 11% to 14%.
Greece had to accept a 110bn-euro ($150bn; £93bn) rescue deal in May.
This sum - which is being given to the country in three stages - has come from the European Union and International Monetary Fund.
To get the money, Greece had to agree to enforce substantial spending cuts to reduce both its public deficit and overall government debt, which are among the largest in Europe.
The country's finance department also said that the Greek economy would contract by 4.2% this year and by a further 3% in 2011, higher than its previous estimate of a 2.6% slowdown next year.
The budget also reveals that the Greek government is to sell stakes in state-owned companies, and even four Airbus A340 planes that it owns.
The sale of organisations to be partly or fully privatised included rail operator Trainose, mining firm Larko, gas operator DEPA, and defence group Hellenic.
Cource: BBC
www.bbc.co.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)