open Democracy News Analysis - After the tsunami, - Comments

caspar.henderson@opendemocracy.net on "After the tsunami"

caspar.henderson@opendemocracy.net — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:44:03 +0000

Thanks to Erin Leonard for interesting links and ideas (although I think there may be a good case for greater use of DDT, when properly applied and under specific conditions, to protect human health). I think Lessons for Life on the Guardian web site, 12 Jan, is worth a look too. The Guardian asked three specialists - Edmund Cairns of Oxfam, the Indian environmentalist Vandana Shiva, and Edward Clay of the UK's Overseas Development Institute - to say what they thought should be changed if future catastrophes are to be mitigated. Among the key lessons and points: Cairns: reconstruction plan(s) must do more than just rebuild poverty; UN leadership and co-ordination is most effective and should not be bypassed; and reform global economic system to remove barriers to people working their own way out of poverty. Shiva: resepect fragile and vulnerable ecosystems; combat corruption that degrades environment and increases vulberability of the poorest; and learn from indigenous communities survived the tsunami and from practices in relatively progressive governments such as that in Kerala state. Clay: tsunami early warning system is not enough - more must be done to understand effects of global warming; major effort to provide micro-credit for the poor is essential; and aid must not be tied. The article is at: http://society.guardian.co.uk/environment/story/0,14124,1387898,00.html

erinleonard2 on "After the tsunami"

erinleonard2 — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 01:25:08 +0000

P.S. Shouldn't this thread be moved over to "Climate Change?"

erinleonard2 on "After the tsunami"

erinleonard2 — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 01:23:31 +0000

For any interested in reading Andrew Browne’s piece without having to subscribe, below is a link to a site called “Growfish—G.A.I.N. [Gippsland Aquaculture Industry Network Inc] Australia.” This org has a paid membership of over 2000 people and organizations with interest in the fish farm industry. The mission statement includes: “Conduct an educational program to promote the value of the aquaculture industry to Gippsland community and GAIN's role in this process.” Though under their “FAQ’s” section are just six questions and answers, including: Q “What is so special about farmed fish? A. “ They are of consistent size and quality, and available all year round. Prices do not fluctuate wildly due to seasonal factors.” The chosen title for the Brown’s piece is” Tourism and aquaculture blamed for high tsunami toll.” http://www.growfish.com.au/content.asp?ContentId=3173 Elsewhere on the site is also an article by Steven Milloy titled “Environmentalists shamefully exploiting tsunami tragedy.” http://www.growfish.com.au/content.asp?contentid=3174 “…in hopes of advancing their global warming and anti-development agendas.” He goes on to say “Exploitation of tragedy is a sport played not only by environmentalists…” but also by “the insurance industry” which “has recently started to blame [global warming] for natural disasters.” He seems to think this insurance companies “are very eager to establish global warming (search) as a contributing factor to those disasters, so they can sue deep-pocket businesses supposedly responsible for that global warming.” Then he also goes on to make the incredible twist of what was actually said to claiming what was said as “global warming as the culprit for this week's death and destruction.” Could one of his “anti-development agendas” be one that was referred to in the Andrew Browne piece? There, near the end of the piece we read: ” The Indian government is now reviewing the implementation of regulations, frequently flouted, that bar all development 1,650 feet from the sea in areas where mangroves and coral thrive. "I think some common sense will prevail now," Ms. Das says. Likewise in Thailand, while Mr. Thamrongnavasawadi mourns the human loss along with the destruction of stretches of reef around the Surin Islands, he is heartened by the lesson in ecology that the tsunami delivered. Indeed, officials in the Maldives said extensive reefs smothered the tsunami, and though 69 people are confirmed dead so far, the loss of life there could have been much worse. “ These 1,650 feet could be what Mr. Milloy when he refers, “Environmentalists are also looking to blame economic development for the devastation wreaked by the tsunamis in hopes of slowing down progress in the third world.” Yikes! Now perhaps Mr. Milloy’s ability to string words in such a way derives from his being an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. In fact the sole source used to debunk this “junk science” Milloy contends is another Cato “scholar.” On the Cato site, Mr. Milloy has another piece, “Real Disaster Relief” posted today on the site: http://www.cato.org/dailys/01-11-05.html Here Mr. Milloy says that, “…Much more could, and should, be done for the health and economic development of the tsunami victims and other developing nations' populations” and recommends to the president of the United States “ to withdraw the U.S. from the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs treaty)…The POPs treaty bans or restricts use of 12 targeted chemicals claimed to cause human-health effects, including cancer, and to harm wildlife…One chemical targeted by the POPs treaty is the insecticide DDT - which, as discussed in earlier columns, was banned by the United States in 1972 based on junk science.” [according to Milloy, global warming is based on junk science] Somehow, in equating people dying from malaria = people dying by tsunami, Mr. Milloy quotes Richard Tren of the Africa Fighting Malaria "The POPs treaty could virtually eliminate the use of DDT, perhaps the most affordable and effective pesticide and repellant in existence. " Mr. Milloy tells us the Africa Fighting Malaria, “a not-for-profit health advocacy group based in South Africa and the U.S. that focuses on the political economy of diseases and disease control in developing countries.” If we go to http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Africa_Fighting_Malaria we learn the group really just a group that lobbies for the “increase use of DDT.” “Tren also uses Africa Fighting Malaria as a platform for other health-related free-market opinions. In particular, with Amir Attaran, he has been vocal in attacking attempts (led by the Treatment Action Campaign) to supply generic versions of AIDS drugs to South Africa, on the grounds that this will stifle innovation. “ Who is Amir Attaran? http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Amir_Attaran “ Dr. Amir Attaran is a lawyer who writes on public health issues from a free-market perspective. He receives numerous donations from the pharmaceutical industry and has supported a number of their initiatives at the WTO, countering the claims of public health non-governmental organizations. He has been a vocal critic against the humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders for its efforts to highlight the effects of drug patents on medicine access, and is a critic of the WHO's Roll Back Malaria campaign. Previously he was an adjunct lecturer in Public Policy at Harvard University, publishing research as part of the Center for International Development and the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is a board member of Africa Fighting Malaria, a private organization funded in part by the American Enterprise Institute.” The American Enterpise Institute…you don’t say…where have I have heard of this org before? http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=American_Enterprise_Institute Oh and look who funds the AEI, the same folks who fund the Cato Institute. And how about those corporate sponsers…Exxonmobil, Coors, Amco… “Innterconnected world” indeed. By far I appreciate the links provided in Mr. Henderson’s piece and where following those sources take me. Here’s one in return composed the organization Worldwatch that touches on climate change questions. http://www.worldwatch.org/features/climate/questionsanswers/b2 Within the answers is this interesting note: “Already, the World Health Organization blames climate change for an estimated 150,000 human deaths every year.” What was being offered was the possibility of healthy coral reefs and mangrove systems would have perhaps saved lives. Why would anyone not want to, as Mr. Henderson mentions, “rationally” look “at the big picture in another way can help us get a fix on the full extent and complexity of what is happening to our planet and the prospects for our inhabitation of it?” Maybe the question is a matter of why, but one of who doesn’t want a rationale discussion and to immediately look behind the curtain as to why that is.

caspar.henderson@opendemocracy.net on "After the tsunami"

caspar.henderson@opendemocracy.net — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:17:15 +0000

Courtney Hamilton writes: “the consequences of the tsunami brought out the best in the human spirit, the spirit of solidarity during times of struggle”. This is true to a degree. There have been many noble acts (far more than we are likely to ever know about), and money isn't everything; but money talks. In Britain, which prides itself on generosity, donations so far have totaled roughly £1.70 (US$4, Euro 3) per person – about the price of a pint of beer. I agree the provisos raised by Graham Wood should be taken into account (see here http://www.opendemocracy.net/forums/thread.jspa?forumID=128&threadID=43761&tstart=0 ) [openDemocracy columnist Dave Belden, among others, will also explore aspects of the politics and the merits of practical responses soon (his page is here http://www.opendemocracy.net/columns/view-8.jsp)]. After that, I part company with Courtney Hamilton. His piece looks as if it was written by someone who was not paying attention, who willfully misunderstood or/and who willfully sought to misrepresent what he had read. The most cursory reading of my piece (http://www.opendemocracy.net/themes/article-6-2301.jsp) will show there is no suggestion that tsunamis and man made global warming are causally linked. The piece does, however, argue that climate change could have consequences that could be more serious. Hamilton continues: “[Henderson] warns us that the killer tsunami is coming to get us all, if we don't combat global warming, which basically means cutting back on economic output growth”. Up to a point, Lord Copper. The real point is: what kind of economic and social development? If it is the kind of development that only goes as far as, for example, to dump hundreds of thousands of extremely poor people onto substantially degraded and vulnerable coastlines, then much more needs to be done. As I wrote: Human development… may be shaped in less destructive ways that take more account of the nature of the world in which we find ourselves. In my view, that would be a good thing because – among other things – it would lead to fewer human lives being lost. (The challenges are not, of course, solely economic and developmental in nature: political divisions in Sri Lanka and Aceh, to name but two, also present substantial obstacles to progress.) I do not think, and have never said that tackling global warming necessarily means cutting back on economic output. I have said – and this position is not considered controversial by most people who trouble to pay attention to the evidence – that an effective response will be an enormous challenge. Courtney Hamilton continues: “Eco-activists like Henderson claims that the tsunami proves development has gone too far in those parts of the world”. No. I am saying we need to rethink development, not end it. This is different. In any case, ending development it is totally impossible. Undertaking effective and appropriate measures – including but by no means limited to effective shelters and early warning systems as, for example, was done in Bangladesh after the cyclone in 1970 – is a good start, but it is a very long way from enough. Hamilton should not only stop making cheap and dishonest shots; he should make shots that are at least in the general direction of the target he intends to hit.

After the tsunami,

Courtney Hamilton — Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:26:45 +0000

There isn't much you can say (that is useful), after disasters. Graham Wood put the tsunami in context with the work of NGO's across the globe. He also managed to put the tsunami in perspective, and this was useful. But in our 24 hour, international-media world, a self-respecting silence is not a part of the script - for some. The ultra right think-tank the Ayn Rand Institute released a news-letter on the 30th December 2005, entitled the 'U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims'. They soon issued a 'clarification', aka an apology, on that piece. See: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10728&news_iv_ctrl=1021 Then came the 'mass child abduction' stories of the worst kind. The kind that has no eveidence to support it. Who remembers the 12 year old Swedish boy seperated from his family by the tsunami? Well that report turned out to be rubbish. See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1054-1428775,00.html Others were worse, like Caspar Henderson's piece 'Tsunami coming for us all'. I wonder if he was thinking about a story synopsis to go with his film treatment. Henderson, like so many on the left - sought to ride the tsunami as a vehicle for his own pet political messages. That message was based mainly on the reactionary anti-humanist and anti-development prejudice that masquerade's as critical thinking. We know that man-made global warming (routinely blamed for most of the world's problems) cannot cause tectonic plates to move about, but that did not stop Henderson twisting the story to fit this particular senario. He warns us that the killer tsunami is coming to get us all, if we don't combat global warming, which basically means cutting back on economic output growth. This disaster was not caused by human activity, the truth is, the areas devastated by the tsunami need more human activity, not less. More human activity will lead to greater economic and social development, only this can help people limit the effects of such disasters. There nothing natural about how much damage a tsunami can cause, but there is a general rule, that the more advanced and wealthier you are, the better protected you will be. The majority of those who perished came from impoverished fishing and farming communities, a sure sign of a backward, underdeveloped economy. Like their ancestors before them, they are dependant on the sea. It is this lack of social and economic development such as well constructed buildings, properly designed, that has left those people exposed to nature. Eco-activists like Henderson claims that the tsunami proves development has gone too far in those parts of the world. So, the tough long road to the future leads back to coral reefs and worse, the mangrove swamp. But the problem is not 'over-development', the problem is that development in those countries have not gone far enough. Finally, the consequenses of the tsunami brought out the best in the human spirit, the spirit of solidarity during times of struggle. It is this spirit that has dragged humanity from the caves (and the mangrove swamps) to something akin to civilisation. It is this spirit that has enabled us to overcome any obsticle that nature puts before us, time and time again.