Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC), the international wing of the Japan Finance Corporation (JFC), a policy-based financing institution, is planning to pick up stake in Indian infrastructure projectsBesides providing export finance to Indian companies to source goods and services from Japan, JBIC is engaged in a phased programme for equity investments in infrastructure and environment projects.
There is a proposal for investment in an Indian power project, said Hiromichi Miyamato, representative (India, Nepal, Sri Lanka & Bhutan) on the sidelines of a seminar on emerging markets here On Thursday.
He, however, did not elaborate on the investment size and the name of the company behind the project. For any project to become eligible for investment from JBIC, a Japanese company must put in money (equity) into the project.
The Indian government has estimated that it would require $500 billion for infrastructure projects across various segments such as power, telecom, roads until 2012.
So far, JBIC has made equity investments in China Eco fund and a power project in Singapore, a company official said.
JBIC’s current exposure to India is in the form of loans and guarantees. The value of its outstanding loan portfolio was $1.1 billion, while it has extended guarantees of about $380 million, he said.
Meanwhile, senior officials from state-owned National Thermal Power Generation company, met Hiroshi Watanabe, president and chief executive of JBIC, for semi-commercial loan for capital expenditure under Leading Investment to Future Environment (LIFE).
The Japanese funding agency has set a target of lending $5 billion in two years under LIFE for projects involving clean power generation, energy efficiency improvement, water and urban transportation.
On the level of scope for investment flow from Japan, the JBIC official said interest has picked up from April. Investments had slowed down in the past six months as the global financial crisis intensified after Lehman Brothers’ collapse in September 2008.
JBIC is providing guarantees for Samurai Bonds, a yen-denominated bond issued by a non-Japanese firm or institution in order to encourage the use of Asian funds for regional needs, tap global markets and vitalise Samurai bond markets.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Poll Finds Support for Action on Global Warming
With major legislation pending in the House, most Americans support government action on climate change – but with an eye on how it works and what it costs
In principle, support is there: Three-quarters in this ABC News/Washington Post poll favor government regulation of greenhouse gases, and 62 percent feel that way even if it raises prices. But fewer support a so-called "cap-and-trade" system – central to current efforts – especially as cost impacts rise.
Click here for PDF with charts and questionnaire.
Overall, 52 percent support cap and trade, down 7 points from a year ago, led by a 14-point drop among political independents, the crucial center of political consensus. Forty-six percent of independents now favor cap and trade, on par with Republicans.
Asked another way, support's at 56 percent overall if cap and trade significantly lowered greenhouse gases while raising electric bills by $10 a month. But at $25 a month, it drops to 44 percent, with 54 percent opposed. Specifically among independents, 58 percent favor cap and trade at $10 – but just 43 percent at $25.
A cap and trade system would have the government issue permits limiting the amount of greenhouse gases companies could emit; they could buy and sell these permits depending on their emission needs. A vote on the measure could come as early as Friday.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the proposed bill would cost an average of $175 annually per household (about $15 a month); the Environmental Protection Agency puts it at $80-$111 per year (averaging $8 monthly). But congressional Republicans have warned of $3,100 in annual price increases.
President Obama, who urged passage of the legislation at a news conference Tuesday, holds majority approval on handling global warming, 54 percent. But that's down from 61 percent in April, amid some slippage for the president on several issues.
The change, again, occurred chiefly among independents, from 62 percent approval for Obama on global warming in late April to 52 percent now
Likely cognizant of cost concerns, Obama focused Tuesday not on cap and trade but rather on what he said would be cost savings and other gains produced by the legislation, saying it would "spur new energy savings," "reduce our dependence on foreign oil" and reduce pollution, all positive attributes in public opinion.
G8 – Obama is scheduled to take the issue to the international stage at a meeting of world leaders on climate change to be held next month in Italy immediately after the G8 economic summit there. On this, too, there's persuasion ahead: While most Americans support U.S. action, even if unilateral, this also has declined in the past year.
In a July 2008 poll, 68 percent said the United States should take action on global warming, regardless of whether other industrial countries, such as China and India, take similar steps. Today, 59 percent still hold that view – a majority, but less of one. (The decline was led by a 13-point drop in this view among Democrats, 12 points among women.)
Of the rest, 20 percent say the United States should act only if other countries do as well; 18 percent say it should not act at all.
GROUPS – There is strong partisanship on all these measures; for example, 69 percent of Democrats say the United States should act unilaterally, if necessary, on global warming; that drops to 59 percent of independents and 45 percent of Republicans.
Among other groups, there's a notable difference by age: Seniors are 10 points less apt than adults under 65 to favor government regulation of greenhouse gases overall; 10 points less apt to support it if it raises prices; and again 10 points less apt to back cap and trade. Support for cap and trade peaks, at 65 percent, of under-30s.
Costs, meanwhile, are particularly important to less well-off Americans. Among those making less than $50,000 a year, support for regulating greenhouse gas emissions drops by 17 points (from 75 percent to a still-majority 58 percent) if it raises prices; support if it costs $10 a month is 49 percent; and at $25, just 35 percent.
METHODOLOGY -- This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone June 18-21, 2009, among a random national sample of 1,001 adults, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents. Results for the full sample have a 3.5-point error margin; click here for a detailed description of sampling error. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.
In principle, support is there: Three-quarters in this ABC News/Washington Post poll favor government regulation of greenhouse gases, and 62 percent feel that way even if it raises prices. But fewer support a so-called "cap-and-trade" system – central to current efforts – especially as cost impacts rise.
Click here for PDF with charts and questionnaire.
Overall, 52 percent support cap and trade, down 7 points from a year ago, led by a 14-point drop among political independents, the crucial center of political consensus. Forty-six percent of independents now favor cap and trade, on par with Republicans.
Asked another way, support's at 56 percent overall if cap and trade significantly lowered greenhouse gases while raising electric bills by $10 a month. But at $25 a month, it drops to 44 percent, with 54 percent opposed. Specifically among independents, 58 percent favor cap and trade at $10 – but just 43 percent at $25.
A cap and trade system would have the government issue permits limiting the amount of greenhouse gases companies could emit; they could buy and sell these permits depending on their emission needs. A vote on the measure could come as early as Friday.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the proposed bill would cost an average of $175 annually per household (about $15 a month); the Environmental Protection Agency puts it at $80-$111 per year (averaging $8 monthly). But congressional Republicans have warned of $3,100 in annual price increases.
President Obama, who urged passage of the legislation at a news conference Tuesday, holds majority approval on handling global warming, 54 percent. But that's down from 61 percent in April, amid some slippage for the president on several issues.
The change, again, occurred chiefly among independents, from 62 percent approval for Obama on global warming in late April to 52 percent now
Likely cognizant of cost concerns, Obama focused Tuesday not on cap and trade but rather on what he said would be cost savings and other gains produced by the legislation, saying it would "spur new energy savings," "reduce our dependence on foreign oil" and reduce pollution, all positive attributes in public opinion.
G8 – Obama is scheduled to take the issue to the international stage at a meeting of world leaders on climate change to be held next month in Italy immediately after the G8 economic summit there. On this, too, there's persuasion ahead: While most Americans support U.S. action, even if unilateral, this also has declined in the past year.
In a July 2008 poll, 68 percent said the United States should take action on global warming, regardless of whether other industrial countries, such as China and India, take similar steps. Today, 59 percent still hold that view – a majority, but less of one. (The decline was led by a 13-point drop in this view among Democrats, 12 points among women.)
Of the rest, 20 percent say the United States should act only if other countries do as well; 18 percent say it should not act at all.
GROUPS – There is strong partisanship on all these measures; for example, 69 percent of Democrats say the United States should act unilaterally, if necessary, on global warming; that drops to 59 percent of independents and 45 percent of Republicans.
Among other groups, there's a notable difference by age: Seniors are 10 points less apt than adults under 65 to favor government regulation of greenhouse gases overall; 10 points less apt to support it if it raises prices; and again 10 points less apt to back cap and trade. Support for cap and trade peaks, at 65 percent, of under-30s.
Costs, meanwhile, are particularly important to less well-off Americans. Among those making less than $50,000 a year, support for regulating greenhouse gas emissions drops by 17 points (from 75 percent to a still-majority 58 percent) if it raises prices; support if it costs $10 a month is 49 percent; and at $25, just 35 percent.
METHODOLOGY -- This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone June 18-21, 2009, among a random national sample of 1,001 adults, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents. Results for the full sample have a 3.5-point error margin; click here for a detailed description of sampling error. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.
Putting a financial spin on global warming
Promoting responses to global warming as an economic opportunity — rather than as a pollution problem that needs to be solved through regulation — has long been championed by a tiny think tank in Oakland, California.
Climate change is a potential environmental disaster — but it's also potentially an economic opportunity. President Obama spoke of it in economic terms Tuesday when he urged the House of Representatives to pass legislation that wo"The nation that leads in the creation of a clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the 21st century global economy," he said. "That is what this legislation seeks to achieve. It is a bill that will open the door to a better future for this nation. And that is why I urge members of Congress to come together and pass it."
Promoting responses to global warming as an economic opportunity — rather than as a pollution problem that needs to be solved through regulation — has long been championed by a tiny think tank in Oakland, Calif.
The Breakthrough Institute
The Breakthrough Institute doesn't look like much — just a few offices in a shared suite in downtown Oakland.
There are only five people on staff. On a recent day, they were outnumbered by an incoming crop of seven freshly minted college graduates, who showed up for their summer internships.
Michael Shellenberger, 37, and Ted Nordhaus, 43, founded the Breakthrough Institute in 2002.
Shellenberger tells the interns that environmental groups — like the ones he used to work for — are going about it all wrong. By urging Congress to cast carbon dioxide as a pollutant that needs to be controlled, he says, they will constantly swim against the tide of public opinion.
"We're stuck in this kind of poor paradigm for dealing with climate change, this pollution paradigm," he says, "not because environmentalists are failures, but actually because they were so successful. The Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the cap and trade on acid rain — these things worked really well."
Pushing Innovation, Not Regulation
But reducing carbon dioxide is a different story. It's not just a nuisance byproduct, like the sulfur in coal that contributes to acid rain. Carbon dioxide is unavoidable when we burn coal, oil and natural gas. So getting rid of it means either capturing it at great expense, or regulating fossil fuels into oblivion.
In theory, regulation will force companies to develop cleaner alternatives as the price of carbon pollution grows. But Shellenberger says that'll never work.
"When was the last time human beings modernized our energy sources by making older power sources more expensive?" he asks the interns. "And, of course, by now you probably know that the answer is never."
Personal computers didn't take off because there was a tax on typewriters, he says. And the Internet didn't sprout up because the government made telegraphs more expensive.
"So is there a better way to do this? Well, we think that there is. It's very simple: It's that we need to make clean energy cheap worldwide."
China will never stop burning its massive reserves of coal unless there's something cheap to replace them, he argues. And the United States isn't likely to stop burning coal, either, he says.
Shellenberger and Nordhaus argue that the best way to develop those clean technologies is to increase federal energy research tenfold, and to create a project akin to the Apollo mission to the moon. But a massive increase in federal energy research spending is not a popular idea at the moment.
"There's this idea that the government shouldn't be involved in technology, the government shouldn't be picking winners and losers," Shellenberger says. "Which is sort of a funny thing to say. It's kind of like, well, why not? And when hasn't the United States government been involved in picking technology winners and losers?"
He points to the computer industry as just one example of something that came into being because of deliberate federal investments.
Tapping Into Americans' Love Of Invention
Nordhaus and Shellenberger weren't always technology advocates. They met as young adults, trying to save redwood trees on the California coast. Working as pollsters and strategists, they spent a lot of time figuring out what motivates people. That led them to rethink how to frame global warming as an issue.
"The things that will drive or not drive action have nothing to do with how well you understand how fast the polar ice caps are melting," Nordhaus says.
A sense of doom or shame only motivates a small segment of the public — and puts off the rest, he says. Instead, their research shows that people are motivated when the issue is presented as an opportunity to revolutionize energy technology.
"In fact, not only is it popular, but voters get excited about it," Shellenberger says. "If you go and talk to folks in the Rust Belt, in Ohio, or you talk to people in Silicon Valley, you talk to people in New York, Americans love that. And they love that, I think, for reasons that are really specific to the national character, which is: That's what Americans do; we invent stuff. That is so much part of who we are. It just seems crazy that we wouldn't put that at the center of our policy agenda."
Critics Say There Isn't Time
The downside of this is that global warming is a looming crisis, and critics say their solution offers no timetable for action and no assurances that technologies will be ready before the world tips into a dangerous new state. So they often hear that their approach is a distraction.
"Well, I say, look in the mirror here," Nordhaus says. He says the pollution paradigm isn't succeeding either. Most countries aren't keeping the lofty promises they made in international climate talks. And the 1,200 page climate legislation now before Congress is so full of escape clauses and giveaways, it's not clear what exactly it will achieve. One thing it won't do is substantially increase federal research dollars.
Nordhaus and Shellenberger rail against the bill in the blogosphere. And they're trying to get attention on Capitol Hill.
Taking Their Agenda To The Capitol
A few days after our interview, we meet up again in front of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
They came to town with a simple plea: The government needs to spend more money — not less — to develop radical new energy technologies, and to help bring those to market.
On this day, they're accompanied by Peter Teague from the left-leaning Nathan Cummings Foundation — the Breakthrough Institute's main funder. Teague is pleased with what Shellenberger and Nordhaus have achieved to date.
"The president has adopted their language, their message, the story they helped to develop," Teague says. "The next stage in the development of all of this is for the actual reality of the policy to reflect the glowing, wonderful, positive, visionary rhetoric."
Turning Obama's rhetoric on energy opportunity into a fundamentally new approach to climate change will require a massive political shift. And that's the breakthrough that the Breakthrough Institute is hoping to achieve.
Climate change is a potential environmental disaster — but it's also potentially an economic opportunity. President Obama spoke of it in economic terms Tuesday when he urged the House of Representatives to pass legislation that wo"The nation that leads in the creation of a clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the 21st century global economy," he said. "That is what this legislation seeks to achieve. It is a bill that will open the door to a better future for this nation. And that is why I urge members of Congress to come together and pass it."
Promoting responses to global warming as an economic opportunity — rather than as a pollution problem that needs to be solved through regulation — has long been championed by a tiny think tank in Oakland, Calif.
The Breakthrough Institute
The Breakthrough Institute doesn't look like much — just a few offices in a shared suite in downtown Oakland.
There are only five people on staff. On a recent day, they were outnumbered by an incoming crop of seven freshly minted college graduates, who showed up for their summer internships.
Michael Shellenberger, 37, and Ted Nordhaus, 43, founded the Breakthrough Institute in 2002.
Shellenberger tells the interns that environmental groups — like the ones he used to work for — are going about it all wrong. By urging Congress to cast carbon dioxide as a pollutant that needs to be controlled, he says, they will constantly swim against the tide of public opinion.
"We're stuck in this kind of poor paradigm for dealing with climate change, this pollution paradigm," he says, "not because environmentalists are failures, but actually because they were so successful. The Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the cap and trade on acid rain — these things worked really well."
Pushing Innovation, Not Regulation
But reducing carbon dioxide is a different story. It's not just a nuisance byproduct, like the sulfur in coal that contributes to acid rain. Carbon dioxide is unavoidable when we burn coal, oil and natural gas. So getting rid of it means either capturing it at great expense, or regulating fossil fuels into oblivion.
In theory, regulation will force companies to develop cleaner alternatives as the price of carbon pollution grows. But Shellenberger says that'll never work.
"When was the last time human beings modernized our energy sources by making older power sources more expensive?" he asks the interns. "And, of course, by now you probably know that the answer is never."
Personal computers didn't take off because there was a tax on typewriters, he says. And the Internet didn't sprout up because the government made telegraphs more expensive.
"So is there a better way to do this? Well, we think that there is. It's very simple: It's that we need to make clean energy cheap worldwide."
China will never stop burning its massive reserves of coal unless there's something cheap to replace them, he argues. And the United States isn't likely to stop burning coal, either, he says.
Shellenberger and Nordhaus argue that the best way to develop those clean technologies is to increase federal energy research tenfold, and to create a project akin to the Apollo mission to the moon. But a massive increase in federal energy research spending is not a popular idea at the moment.
"There's this idea that the government shouldn't be involved in technology, the government shouldn't be picking winners and losers," Shellenberger says. "Which is sort of a funny thing to say. It's kind of like, well, why not? And when hasn't the United States government been involved in picking technology winners and losers?"
He points to the computer industry as just one example of something that came into being because of deliberate federal investments.
Tapping Into Americans' Love Of Invention
Nordhaus and Shellenberger weren't always technology advocates. They met as young adults, trying to save redwood trees on the California coast. Working as pollsters and strategists, they spent a lot of time figuring out what motivates people. That led them to rethink how to frame global warming as an issue.
"The things that will drive or not drive action have nothing to do with how well you understand how fast the polar ice caps are melting," Nordhaus says.
A sense of doom or shame only motivates a small segment of the public — and puts off the rest, he says. Instead, their research shows that people are motivated when the issue is presented as an opportunity to revolutionize energy technology.
"In fact, not only is it popular, but voters get excited about it," Shellenberger says. "If you go and talk to folks in the Rust Belt, in Ohio, or you talk to people in Silicon Valley, you talk to people in New York, Americans love that. And they love that, I think, for reasons that are really specific to the national character, which is: That's what Americans do; we invent stuff. That is so much part of who we are. It just seems crazy that we wouldn't put that at the center of our policy agenda."
Critics Say There Isn't Time
The downside of this is that global warming is a looming crisis, and critics say their solution offers no timetable for action and no assurances that technologies will be ready before the world tips into a dangerous new state. So they often hear that their approach is a distraction.
"Well, I say, look in the mirror here," Nordhaus says. He says the pollution paradigm isn't succeeding either. Most countries aren't keeping the lofty promises they made in international climate talks. And the 1,200 page climate legislation now before Congress is so full of escape clauses and giveaways, it's not clear what exactly it will achieve. One thing it won't do is substantially increase federal research dollars.
Nordhaus and Shellenberger rail against the bill in the blogosphere. And they're trying to get attention on Capitol Hill.
Taking Their Agenda To The Capitol
A few days after our interview, we meet up again in front of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
They came to town with a simple plea: The government needs to spend more money — not less — to develop radical new energy technologies, and to help bring those to market.
On this day, they're accompanied by Peter Teague from the left-leaning Nathan Cummings Foundation — the Breakthrough Institute's main funder. Teague is pleased with what Shellenberger and Nordhaus have achieved to date.
"The president has adopted their language, their message, the story they helped to develop," Teague says. "The next stage in the development of all of this is for the actual reality of the policy to reflect the glowing, wonderful, positive, visionary rhetoric."
Turning Obama's rhetoric on energy opportunity into a fundamentally new approach to climate change will require a massive political shift. And that's the breakthrough that the Breakthrough Institute is hoping to achieve.
US Government Scientists Call For Urgent Action on Global Warming
Several top U.S. government climate change scientists released a new report on Tuesday warning that the effects of global warming will become more severe unless the Obama administration takes action quickly. For years, scientists have talked about the threat of rising sea levels on remote tropical islands and melting ice in the polar regions. But a new report by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program makes the threat of global warming personal. "Climate change is happening now and it's happening in our own backyards, and it affects the kinds of things people care about," said Jane Lubchenco.Jane Lubchenco is the head of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. She says the report presents scientific evidence that will inform policy making.The report, compiled by more than 30 scientists at 13 U.S. government agencies, describes climate-related changes that are happening in the United States.Tom Karl, was a principal author of the report."U.S. average temperature has risen by 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 50 years," said Tom Karl. "We've had more rain coming in heavy downpours that can lead to flooding. Less winter precipitation is falling as snow, more as rain."The report, commissioned by the White House, uses climate models to project what will happen if action is not taken to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions that most scientists say cause global warming.It predicts increasingly deadly heat waves, and higher incidents of asthma and diseases transmitted through the water and by insects and rodents.Jerry Melillo, an author and director of the Ecosystems Center at the Marine Biological Laboratory in Massachusetts, says U.S. coastlines are under particular threat of rising sea levels and stronger hurricanes.He points specifically to the U.S. coast along the Gulf of Mexico, where seven of the nation's 10 biggest seaports are located and two-thirds of all U.S. oil imports are transported."Vital energy and transportation infrastructure will be at risk with expected sea level rise and associated storm surge," said Jerry Melillo.The report says the most severe affects of climate change can be avoided if action is taken swiftly to reduce heat-trapping gasses. Not everyone is convinced. William Gray, a professor emeritus at Colorado State University's Department of Atmospheric Science, is one of the skeptics.He says some scientists are placing too much emphasis on the role of greenhouse gases in climate change."There's no way they can warm the way the models say they do warm," said William Gray.Gray says the rising temperatures are caused by natural fluctuations in the oceans' salinity levels. "I think this whole thing in 10, 15, 20 years as we look back on this, and as we learn more, we'll see that this was a great exaggeration," he said.Scientists are not the only people debating climate change. The U.S. Congress is considering legislation on how to tackle the problem. And international negotiators from 182 nations are working on a roadmap to fight global warming. Negotiators have to come up with a plan to replace the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions by December, when they present their proposal at a United Nations conference in Copenhagen.
Michael Jackson Dies
Michael Jackson, the sensationally gifted child star who rose to become the "King of Pop" and the biggest celebrity in the world only to fall from his throne in a freakish series of scandals, died Thursday. He was 50. Jackson died at UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles. Ed Winter, the assistant chief coroner for Los Angeles County, confirmed his office had been notified of the death and would handle the investigation.
The circumstances of Jackson's death were not immediately clear. Jackson was not breathing when Los Angeles Fire Department paramedics responded to a call at his Los Angeles home about 12:30 p.m., Capt. Steve Ruda told the Los Angeles Times. The paramedics performed CPR and took him to UCLA Medical Center, Ruda told the newspaper.
Jackson's death brought a tragic end to a long, bizarre, sometimes farcical decline from his peak in the 1980s, when he was popular music's premier all-around performer, a uniter of black and white music who shattered the race barrier on MTV, dominated the charts and dazzled even more on stage.
His 1982 album "Thriller" _ which included the blockbuster hits "Beat It," "Billie Jean" and "Thriller" _ remains the biggest-selling album of all time, with more than 100 million copies worldwide.
The public first knew him in the late 1960s, when as a boy he was the precocious, spinning lead singer of the Jackson 5, the music group he formed with his four older brothers. Among their No. 1 hits were "I Want You Back," "ABC," and "I'll Be There."
He was perhaps the most exciting performer of his generation, known for his feverish, crotch-grabbing dance moves and his high-pitched voice punctuated with squeals and titters. His single sequined glove, tight, military-style jacket and aviator sunglasses were trademarks second only to his ever-changing, surgically altered appearance.
"For Michael to be taken away from us so suddenly at such a young age, I just don't have the words," said Quincy Jones, who produced "Thriller." "He was the consummate entertainer and his contributions and legacy will be felt upon the world forever. I've lost my little brother today, and part of my soul has gone with him."
Jackson ranked alongside Elvis Presley and the Beatles as the biggest pop sensations of all time. In fact, he united two of music's biggest names when he was briefly married to Presley's daughter, Lisa Marie.
The circumstances of Jackson's death were not immediately clear. Jackson was not breathing when Los Angeles Fire Department paramedics responded to a call at his Los Angeles home about 12:30 p.m., Capt. Steve Ruda told the Los Angeles Times. The paramedics performed CPR and took him to UCLA Medical Center, Ruda told the newspaper.
Jackson's death brought a tragic end to a long, bizarre, sometimes farcical decline from his peak in the 1980s, when he was popular music's premier all-around performer, a uniter of black and white music who shattered the race barrier on MTV, dominated the charts and dazzled even more on stage.
His 1982 album "Thriller" _ which included the blockbuster hits "Beat It," "Billie Jean" and "Thriller" _ remains the biggest-selling album of all time, with more than 100 million copies worldwide.
The public first knew him in the late 1960s, when as a boy he was the precocious, spinning lead singer of the Jackson 5, the music group he formed with his four older brothers. Among their No. 1 hits were "I Want You Back," "ABC," and "I'll Be There."
He was perhaps the most exciting performer of his generation, known for his feverish, crotch-grabbing dance moves and his high-pitched voice punctuated with squeals and titters. His single sequined glove, tight, military-style jacket and aviator sunglasses were trademarks second only to his ever-changing, surgically altered appearance.
"For Michael to be taken away from us so suddenly at such a young age, I just don't have the words," said Quincy Jones, who produced "Thriller." "He was the consummate entertainer and his contributions and legacy will be felt upon the world forever. I've lost my little brother today, and part of my soul has gone with him."
Jackson ranked alongside Elvis Presley and the Beatles as the biggest pop sensations of all time. In fact, he united two of music's biggest names when he was briefly married to Presley's daughter, Lisa Marie.
No Need to Oversimplify Poverty
Bill Easterly takes a complex problem, African poverty, and tries to reduce it to a single factor: "the consensus among most academic economists is that destructive governments rather than destructive geography explain the poverty of nations." This is a strange assertion. Geography and government policies both matter.
The idea that geography affects economic performance is an old one. Easterly and some other economists have taken a particular position about the relationship between geography and development. They too have recognized the high correlation of a country's poverty with being in a malaria-transmission region, or being landlocked, or being in an ecological zone leading to low food productivity. Those correlations after all are powerful, as recently shown again by Prof. William Nordhaus of Yale , in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Easterly and the others, however, have made a very unusual argument: yes, the correlations are there, but only for historical reasons. Bad geography two centuries ago led colonial powers to adopt exploitative political and economic institutions in the adversely affected regions. The adverse geography itself is no longer important, Easterly and his colleagues have claimed, but the adverse political and economic institutions live on nonetheless.
Specialists in many fields, inside economics and beyond, disagree strongly with this way of thinking. They believe that various dimensions of geography were important in the past, and are still important directly today. A region that suffers from malaria today, whether because of its tropical climate or the species of its mosquitoes, is hindered in development not only because it has poor institutions inherited from 1820, but because it has malaria, which kills and disables children, discourages public and private investments, and hinders economies in many other ways. A recent academic study by Kai Carstensen and Erich Gundlach, published in the World Bank Economic Review in 2006, made this point powerfully and directly: "After controlling for institutional quality, malaria prevalence is found to cause quantitatively negative effects on income."
Adam Smith, the pioneer of market economics, knew about the direct role of geography in affecting transport and trade all the way back in 1776. Even though the main purpose of the Wealth of Nations was to discuss the implications of economic policy and the division of labor on economic wealth, Smith also emphasized the role of geography in affecting national wealth. He cited Africa as a region suffering from especially high transport costs and therefore poor economic development:
There are in Africa none of those great inlets, such as the Baltic and Adriatic seas in Europe, the Mediterranean and Euxine [Black] seas in both Europe and Asia, and the gulfs of Arabia, Persia, India, Bengal, and Siam, in Asia, to carry maritime commerce into the interior parts of that great continent: and the great rivers of Africa are at too great a distance from one another to give occasion to any considerable inland navigation.
More recently, Paul Collier in The Bottom Billion, as well as my colleagues and I in several studies, have shown that being landlocked and far from the coast continues to be a major hindrance to participating in certain kinds of international trade, especially for manufacturing exports. This is seen powerfully in sectors like apparel and other assembly exports, where semi-processed goods are imported from abroad, further processed, and then re-exported. It is very disadvantageous in general to set up such export operations in landlocked countries or far from ports or major markets. Collier emphasizes the special difficulty for a poor landlocked country that is surrounded by poor neighbors. The nearby markets are insufficient to generate much trade, and participation in globe trade is very hard. As Collier puts it, landlocked countries are "hostages to their neighbors."
When it comes to agriculture, the geography-based problems of water are often paramount. The Green Revolution in Asia, which helped to trigger long-term economic growth in India and other countries, depended heavily on irrigation from the massive rivers systems of the region. In dry land areas with much higher costs of irrigation, the Green Revolution has been much harder to achieve. It may not be impossible, but the costs of entry for poor dry land countries are very high. The result can be low farm productivity, chronic rural poverty, and often no escape from extreme deprivation.
Bill Easterly seems not to want to be bothered by the details of irrigation-based versus rain-fed agriculture, or the types of mosquito species in Africa, or the implications of being landlocked for international trade, or the effects of a dry climate and high costs of irrigation on food production in poor rural areas. He seems to prefer a one-factor solution. He is not alone among economists in ignoring these "details," but this is nonetheless an odd approach scientifically, especially when dealing with a complex system like an economy. When biologists deal with a complex system like the human body, they know that thousands of particular causes - even one single change of base pair in the genetic code - can cause crippling diseases or deaths. They are attentive to the large number of possible causes and their interactions, rather than claiming as the ancients once did that disease is the result of an imbalance of the four bodily humours. The key is to use a "differential diagnosis" to ascertain the causes underlying a specific situation, rather than assuming that a problem like poverty has a single cause.
Sub-Saharan Africa faces a constellation of special challenges, with greater or lesser impact in different parts of the region, including: a climate and ecology especially burdened by infectious diseases such as p. falciparum malaria and other vector-borne diseases; a rain-fed agriculture, much of it in sub-humid or arid zones that are prone to drought; high overland transport costs, including the greatest number of landlocked countries of any continent and a relative paucity of ocean-navigable rivers; low population densities in rural areas, characteristic of many rainforest and dry ecosystems, which make rural infrastructure relatively expensive; a historical legacy of colonial rule in which the colonial powers left behind relatively little infrastructure; and of course challenges of bad governance like Mr. Mugabe of Zimbabwe. These challenges should be addressed forthrightly and in an integrated manner.It's just bad science, and offensive, to read in Easterly's blog that I offer "a bizarre geographic theory of Africa's poverty and [am] oblivious to the bad governments that many courageous dissenters have fought at great sacrifice." The geographic factors are not "bizarre," and I have never been oblivious to the tremendous costs that can be caused by bad governments. In the End of Poverty (p. 194) I wrote "I visited Zimbabwe several times, and saw Robert Mugabe's depredations firsthand. Zimbabwe is a case where the traditional explanation of miserable rule is a sufficient explanation for a country's ills (although the nation no doubt suffers from other serious problems as well)." I have always pointed to geography and good governance as complementary factors, not a choice of one or the other.Complex systems, in summary, require explanations that acknowledge complexity. An economy is affected by many factors: its proximity to trade, resource base, climate, history, social divisions, as well as government policies. A true economic science treats the economy with the care and sophistication that biologists treat an organism or that ecologists treat an ecosystem. Single-factor explanations for poverty take us back to pre-scientific realms and ways of thinking that are counterproductive for solving real problems.
The idea that geography affects economic performance is an old one. Easterly and some other economists have taken a particular position about the relationship between geography and development. They too have recognized the high correlation of a country's poverty with being in a malaria-transmission region, or being landlocked, or being in an ecological zone leading to low food productivity. Those correlations after all are powerful, as recently shown again by Prof. William Nordhaus of Yale , in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Easterly and the others, however, have made a very unusual argument: yes, the correlations are there, but only for historical reasons. Bad geography two centuries ago led colonial powers to adopt exploitative political and economic institutions in the adversely affected regions. The adverse geography itself is no longer important, Easterly and his colleagues have claimed, but the adverse political and economic institutions live on nonetheless.
Specialists in many fields, inside economics and beyond, disagree strongly with this way of thinking. They believe that various dimensions of geography were important in the past, and are still important directly today. A region that suffers from malaria today, whether because of its tropical climate or the species of its mosquitoes, is hindered in development not only because it has poor institutions inherited from 1820, but because it has malaria, which kills and disables children, discourages public and private investments, and hinders economies in many other ways. A recent academic study by Kai Carstensen and Erich Gundlach, published in the World Bank Economic Review in 2006, made this point powerfully and directly: "After controlling for institutional quality, malaria prevalence is found to cause quantitatively negative effects on income."
Adam Smith, the pioneer of market economics, knew about the direct role of geography in affecting transport and trade all the way back in 1776. Even though the main purpose of the Wealth of Nations was to discuss the implications of economic policy and the division of labor on economic wealth, Smith also emphasized the role of geography in affecting national wealth. He cited Africa as a region suffering from especially high transport costs and therefore poor economic development:
There are in Africa none of those great inlets, such as the Baltic and Adriatic seas in Europe, the Mediterranean and Euxine [Black] seas in both Europe and Asia, and the gulfs of Arabia, Persia, India, Bengal, and Siam, in Asia, to carry maritime commerce into the interior parts of that great continent: and the great rivers of Africa are at too great a distance from one another to give occasion to any considerable inland navigation.
More recently, Paul Collier in The Bottom Billion, as well as my colleagues and I in several studies, have shown that being landlocked and far from the coast continues to be a major hindrance to participating in certain kinds of international trade, especially for manufacturing exports. This is seen powerfully in sectors like apparel and other assembly exports, where semi-processed goods are imported from abroad, further processed, and then re-exported. It is very disadvantageous in general to set up such export operations in landlocked countries or far from ports or major markets. Collier emphasizes the special difficulty for a poor landlocked country that is surrounded by poor neighbors. The nearby markets are insufficient to generate much trade, and participation in globe trade is very hard. As Collier puts it, landlocked countries are "hostages to their neighbors."
When it comes to agriculture, the geography-based problems of water are often paramount. The Green Revolution in Asia, which helped to trigger long-term economic growth in India and other countries, depended heavily on irrigation from the massive rivers systems of the region. In dry land areas with much higher costs of irrigation, the Green Revolution has been much harder to achieve. It may not be impossible, but the costs of entry for poor dry land countries are very high. The result can be low farm productivity, chronic rural poverty, and often no escape from extreme deprivation.
Bill Easterly seems not to want to be bothered by the details of irrigation-based versus rain-fed agriculture, or the types of mosquito species in Africa, or the implications of being landlocked for international trade, or the effects of a dry climate and high costs of irrigation on food production in poor rural areas. He seems to prefer a one-factor solution. He is not alone among economists in ignoring these "details," but this is nonetheless an odd approach scientifically, especially when dealing with a complex system like an economy. When biologists deal with a complex system like the human body, they know that thousands of particular causes - even one single change of base pair in the genetic code - can cause crippling diseases or deaths. They are attentive to the large number of possible causes and their interactions, rather than claiming as the ancients once did that disease is the result of an imbalance of the four bodily humours. The key is to use a "differential diagnosis" to ascertain the causes underlying a specific situation, rather than assuming that a problem like poverty has a single cause.
Sub-Saharan Africa faces a constellation of special challenges, with greater or lesser impact in different parts of the region, including: a climate and ecology especially burdened by infectious diseases such as p. falciparum malaria and other vector-borne diseases; a rain-fed agriculture, much of it in sub-humid or arid zones that are prone to drought; high overland transport costs, including the greatest number of landlocked countries of any continent and a relative paucity of ocean-navigable rivers; low population densities in rural areas, characteristic of many rainforest and dry ecosystems, which make rural infrastructure relatively expensive; a historical legacy of colonial rule in which the colonial powers left behind relatively little infrastructure; and of course challenges of bad governance like Mr. Mugabe of Zimbabwe. These challenges should be addressed forthrightly and in an integrated manner.It's just bad science, and offensive, to read in Easterly's blog that I offer "a bizarre geographic theory of Africa's poverty and [am] oblivious to the bad governments that many courageous dissenters have fought at great sacrifice." The geographic factors are not "bizarre," and I have never been oblivious to the tremendous costs that can be caused by bad governments. In the End of Poverty (p. 194) I wrote "I visited Zimbabwe several times, and saw Robert Mugabe's depredations firsthand. Zimbabwe is a case where the traditional explanation of miserable rule is a sufficient explanation for a country's ills (although the nation no doubt suffers from other serious problems as well)." I have always pointed to geography and good governance as complementary factors, not a choice of one or the other.Complex systems, in summary, require explanations that acknowledge complexity. An economy is affected by many factors: its proximity to trade, resource base, climate, history, social divisions, as well as government policies. A true economic science treats the economy with the care and sophistication that biologists treat an organism or that ecologists treat an ecosystem. Single-factor explanations for poverty take us back to pre-scientific realms and ways of thinking that are counterproductive for solving real problems.
Ecological balance in northern region under threat following withdrawal of waters of common rivers
The ecological balance in five districts of Rangpur region is under severe threat because of unilateral withdrawal of waters of common rivers by India, official concerned feared.They said as an impact of ecological imbalance, the region is facing unprecedented floods, drought, desertification and arsenic contamination, which might fasten the causes of degradation, experienced circle said demanding anonymity.They said unilateral withdrawal of waters of the common rivers by neighbouring India is the main reason of destroying ecological imbalance, they said. They added if the present situation is continued going, the human habitat in the region might be relocated in near future.They said the flash floods, which are visiting the region every year, is not only due to heave rains, but also due to release of huge waters by India during the rainy season through their barrages. The flow of the rivers is also being disrupted because of withdrawal in upstream during the lean season causing drought in the region, the circle viewed.Meanwhile, India is constructing more structures for controlling flow of the common rivers, which made the rivers flow less when enter into Bangladesh.According to survey reports, underground water level in Rangpur region has going down by 30 to 80 feet during the past two decades. Hundreds of trees are dying during the lean season because of inadequate moisture in the soil of the region. "If water flow through the round the year, the situation might improve," said the circle, adding it is only possible if India refrain from withdrawing waters of the common rivers
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)