Opinion
No rock star but hard core for global health
By Elisabeth Schaffer
It’s amazing what an inspired star can do for global health. Bono, the lead singer of the Irish rock band U2, perhaps as well known his music as for his trademark eyewear (he never seems to be without a pair of designer shades), has taken the stage in campaigning against HIV and poverty. His (RED) campaign raises funds—to date over $160 million—to support programs fighting HIV/AIDS in Africa and is clever in the way it caters to consumer demand. Basically, Bono has made it possible for one to care, consume, and be cool at the same time!
By buying (RED) products which range from screen-print (RED) HOT Emporio Armani tees to Converse Paint Swatch sneakers or red-backed Dell Inspiron Minis, consumers in developed countries can put their pocket change to good use in fighting global maladies. A portion of the proceeds is funneled into the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis (TB) & Malaria. Whether Bono’s brand-name business model for charity proves as sustainable as it is fashionable, time will tell but, in any case, this rock star has accomplished a feat that even the most brilliant academics find difficult, if not impossible, to achieve—he has rallied massive public support to tackle one of theworld’s most pressing global health challenges.
Well outside the public spotlight, however, and without a famed personality or fancy sunglasses to sport their cause, a number of infectious diseases continue to cause massive suffering and impaired development for millions or, as Peter J. Hotez argues, billions. Founder of the Global Network for Neglected Tropical Diseases, Hotez argues these infections are among the most common for the 2.7 billion people living on less than $2/day and present the double disadvantage of causing long-term disability while perpetuating a cycle of inescapable poverty.
Annually, neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) account for around 534,000 deaths which, while no doubt significant (and tragic), is not as high as the death toll for the so-called “Big Three”—HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria. Yet, in terms of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs)—a measure which considers overall disease burden in terms of both mortality and morbidity—NTDs rank among the most severe health problems in the developing world, right up there with malaria, TB, and cardiovascular diseases. However, unlike the Big Three, NTDs are not receiving widespread attention. No, to date there is no screen-print, brand name tee-shirt for schistosomiasis. Neither is there a Starbucks Ceramic To-Go Cup for hookworm.
So, what am I, a lowly graduate student, supposed to do about this? To be sure, my presence does not scream stage personality nor would I ever feel comfortable in Bono’s shades. Yet, while I may not be the one to take the stage in campaigning against NTDs, I’m convinced there is much for humanitarians with an academic bent to do! For one, accurate and reliable measures need to be established, which can indicate just how neglected
these diseases are. For this, no amount of singing or dancing will do the trick, unless as much needed breaks from long hours behind a computer screen. Rather, informed research that comes only from solid data analysis and patient literature review will be key to bringing political attention to these neglected diseases. Now that I can aspire to! Scholars for development, your talents are needed! Grab your computers and get going!
Photo above: Bono with world leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland© World Economic Forum swiss-image.ch/Photo by Remy Steinegger, 2005
It’s amazing what an inspired star can do for global health. Bono, the lead singer of the Irish rock band U2, perhaps as well known his music as for his trademark eyewear (he never seems to be without a pair of designer shades), has taken the stage in campaigning against HIV and poverty. His (RED) campaign raises funds—to date over $160 million—to support programs fighting HIV/AIDS in Africa and is clever in the way it caters to consumer demand. Basically, Bono has made it possible for one to care, consume, and be cool at the same time!
By buying (RED) products which range from screen-print (RED) HOT Emporio Armani tees to Converse Paint Swatch sneakers or red-backed Dell Inspiron Minis, consumers in developed countries can put their pocket change to good use in fighting global maladies. A portion of the proceeds is funneled into the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis (TB) & Malaria. Whether Bono’s brand-name business model for charity proves as sustainable as it is fashionable, time will tell but, in any case, this rock star has accomplished a feat that even the most brilliant academics find difficult, if not impossible, to achieve—he has rallied massive public support to tackle one of theworld’s most pressing global health challenges.
Well outside the public spotlight, however, and without a famed personality or fancy sunglasses to sport their cause, a number of infectious diseases continue to cause massive suffering and impaired development for millions or, as Peter J. Hotez argues, billions. Founder of the Global Network for Neglected Tropical Diseases, Hotez argues these infections are among the most common for the 2.7 billion people living on less than $2/day and present the double disadvantage of causing long-term disability while perpetuating a cycle of inescapable poverty.
Annually, neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) account for around 534,000 deaths which, while no doubt significant (and tragic), is not as high as the death toll for the so-called “Big Three”—HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria. Yet, in terms of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs)—a measure which considers overall disease burden in terms of both mortality and morbidity—NTDs rank among the most severe health problems in the developing world, right up there with malaria, TB, and cardiovascular diseases. However, unlike the Big Three, NTDs are not receiving widespread attention. No, to date there is no screen-print, brand name tee-shirt for schistosomiasis. Neither is there a Starbucks Ceramic To-Go Cup for hookworm.
So, what am I, a lowly graduate student, supposed to do about this? To be sure, my presence does not scream stage personality nor would I ever feel comfortable in Bono’s shades. Yet, while I may not be the one to take the stage in campaigning against NTDs, I’m convinced there is much for humanitarians with an academic bent to do! For one, accurate and reliable measures need to be established, which can indicate just how neglected
these diseases are. For this, no amount of singing or dancing will do the trick, unless as much needed breaks from long hours behind a computer screen. Rather, informed research that comes only from solid data analysis and patient literature review will be key to bringing political attention to these neglected diseases. Now that I can aspire to! Scholars for development, your talents are needed! Grab your computers and get going!
Photo above: Bono with world leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland© World Economic Forum swiss-image.ch/Photo by Remy Steinegger, 2005
Give us a little lovin’ too
© www.allvoices.com, 2011
By Anonymous
We’re fat, uneducated, proud patriots who don’t know the difference between Sweden and Switzerland. We drive monstrous
S.U.V.s, keep the air conditioning running on full blast with doors or car windows wide open, leave the water running while
brushing our teeth and subsidize fuel prices, but climate change is a hoax anyway, right? We don’t have passports, but in the rare event that we travel you’ll hear us coming from a block away. The girls are easy, well, except for those Christian fanatical types who preach abstinence and fear homosexuals. We eat a diet consisting exclusively of hot dogs, hamburgers, donuts, French fries and CocaCola and some type of “American sandwich”, which is apparently (although I’ve never seen it in my home
country) fries on a hamburger bun.
A few weeks ago my mom visited and asked, “Do Europeans hate us? Everything I hear about the U.S. is negative.” I’ve discussed this with other Americans who agree that at first the stereotypes are fun and amusing, but after awhile they get old. Of course, maybe it’s normal. Everyone hates the superpower. Since I’m living in Europe where, in my experience, the jokes on Americans are harsh and the media especially negative, I’d like to remind you of our diversity and suggest that some of us are actually, almost, likeable. In general, I think we’re fun people, not scared of making a mistake (“If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again”) or acting silly; most of us are not hierarchical, quite friendly and not snobby—yes, that’s a jab at Europe. Some of us are the exact opposites of all of the stereotypes mentioned. Some of us are fit, cosmopolitan, intellectual, environmentally-friendly, open and tolerant—the opposite of everything you dislike. We’re not just Fox radical Glenn Beck and fast food, but also Comedy Central liberal Jon Stewart and the slow food movement (eating only locally grown produce, no pesticides, minimal environmental impact.) It’s not only the land of George W. but also Obama and my favorite historical figure, Martin Luther King, Jr.
You probably think the American Dream is propaganda, but I know several people who have gone from rags to riches. There’s Yared Fubasa, who now considers me his little sister, from rural Tanzania and now with a doctorate degree from an American university and his own NGO—the first environmental NGO created by a local in his area. A few American high school students on a study trip met him and arranged a full university scholarship. This is just one story, but there are many that I know, and that’s one of the things I like most about my country. The openness, the rugged individuality, the appreciation of diversity and the fact that some do work hard and make it.
In the end, I think there’s good and bad everywhere. Stereotypes aren’t fair; countries and continents are diverse and the haphazard lines that separate us from the next country are quite silly in the end. Stereotypes are fun and I use them too, but in case the jokes and biased European media has led you to believe Americans really are that awful, this article hopes to remind you that we aren’t that bad after all. After all those put-downs, give your American friend a hug. Sometimes we just want a little lovin’ too.
We’re fat, uneducated, proud patriots who don’t know the difference between Sweden and Switzerland. We drive monstrous
S.U.V.s, keep the air conditioning running on full blast with doors or car windows wide open, leave the water running while
brushing our teeth and subsidize fuel prices, but climate change is a hoax anyway, right? We don’t have passports, but in the rare event that we travel you’ll hear us coming from a block away. The girls are easy, well, except for those Christian fanatical types who preach abstinence and fear homosexuals. We eat a diet consisting exclusively of hot dogs, hamburgers, donuts, French fries and CocaCola and some type of “American sandwich”, which is apparently (although I’ve never seen it in my home
country) fries on a hamburger bun.
A few weeks ago my mom visited and asked, “Do Europeans hate us? Everything I hear about the U.S. is negative.” I’ve discussed this with other Americans who agree that at first the stereotypes are fun and amusing, but after awhile they get old. Of course, maybe it’s normal. Everyone hates the superpower. Since I’m living in Europe where, in my experience, the jokes on Americans are harsh and the media especially negative, I’d like to remind you of our diversity and suggest that some of us are actually, almost, likeable. In general, I think we’re fun people, not scared of making a mistake (“If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again”) or acting silly; most of us are not hierarchical, quite friendly and not snobby—yes, that’s a jab at Europe. Some of us are the exact opposites of all of the stereotypes mentioned. Some of us are fit, cosmopolitan, intellectual, environmentally-friendly, open and tolerant—the opposite of everything you dislike. We’re not just Fox radical Glenn Beck and fast food, but also Comedy Central liberal Jon Stewart and the slow food movement (eating only locally grown produce, no pesticides, minimal environmental impact.) It’s not only the land of George W. but also Obama and my favorite historical figure, Martin Luther King, Jr.
You probably think the American Dream is propaganda, but I know several people who have gone from rags to riches. There’s Yared Fubasa, who now considers me his little sister, from rural Tanzania and now with a doctorate degree from an American university and his own NGO—the first environmental NGO created by a local in his area. A few American high school students on a study trip met him and arranged a full university scholarship. This is just one story, but there are many that I know, and that’s one of the things I like most about my country. The openness, the rugged individuality, the appreciation of diversity and the fact that some do work hard and make it.
In the end, I think there’s good and bad everywhere. Stereotypes aren’t fair; countries and continents are diverse and the haphazard lines that separate us from the next country are quite silly in the end. Stereotypes are fun and I use them too, but in case the jokes and biased European media has led you to believe Americans really are that awful, this article hopes to remind you that we aren’t that bad after all. After all those put-downs, give your American friend a hug. Sometimes we just want a little lovin’ too.
Rio floods reconsidered: A view from the ground
The effects of the floods in Nova Friburgo ©Diogo Pereira
By Menandro Barreto Gomes
“Brazil is not Bangladesh and there is no excuse, in the 21st century, for letting people die in landslides caused by rain.”
Debarati Guha-Sapir, Director of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters
“The lack of communication and an emergency plan was the reason the rains in Rio resulted in a bigger tragedy than in Queensland, Australia…”
Margareta Wahlström, UN Assistant Secretary-General for Disaster Risk Reduction
The January floods claimed about 22 lives in Australia. In the state of Rio de Janeiro, they killed over 911 people, making it the worst natural disaster in Brazilian history. For many analysts, like the two specialists quoted above, the higher number of victims in Brazil was the direct result of political negligence. reflecting the huge gap between the two countries in terms of prevention, infrastructure and housing. Their comments were reproduced by numerous news sites in Brazil and abroad, many of which endorsed the conclusion that lack of political will was by far the main factor behind the magnitude of the tragedy in Rio.
Before I went to my hometown, Nova Friburgo (the worst affected area in the country), I would have totally agreed with them. After all, anyone can see that Brazil has failed to implement decent disaster prevention measures and to resettle its millions of poor citizens living in high-risk areas. However, as I understood the dimension of the disaster, I came to realize that one factor was being largely underestimated: the force of nature. These analysts were making hasty conclusions, without much knowledge of what happened on the ground. In fact, for those who looked closely at the affected areas, this event was comparable to powerful earthquakes in its destructive power. According to George Sand, a seismologist at the University of Brasilia, the devastation caused by the storms in Rio could be compared to that provoked by an earthquake of magnitude 10 at the Modified Mercalli Scale (which ranges from 1 to 12).
Middle and upper class affected
Comparisons with the number of victims in Australia prove to be rather misleading, since Rio’s geography played a big role in amplifying the impact of the rains. While the Queensland floods affected mostly flat areas, the rains in Brazil poured over an extremely mountainous region, provoking flash floods and hundreds of deadly landslides. In fact, contrary to what conventional wisdom would presume, this tragedy also claimed the lives of many rich and middleclass Brazilians living in areas considered safe, like my hometown’s former mayor. For Paulo Canedo, head of a research team from the Federal University of Rio, perhaps half of the lives could have been saved by prevention measures, but the tragedy could not have been avoided.
Clearly, it would be both inaccurate and unfair to place the whole blame on political negligence, as specialists like Ms. Guha-Sapir have done. She surely had the best of intentions; but for someone in a position of global influence, this sort of criticism should be based on reliable information from the ground. Especially when backed by today’s powerful mass media, these statements become unquestionable truth for many. So if you’re given a voice, make sure you know what you’re saying: it could be on the headlines tomorrow.
“Brazil is not Bangladesh and there is no excuse, in the 21st century, for letting people die in landslides caused by rain.”
Debarati Guha-Sapir, Director of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters
“The lack of communication and an emergency plan was the reason the rains in Rio resulted in a bigger tragedy than in Queensland, Australia…”
Margareta Wahlström, UN Assistant Secretary-General for Disaster Risk Reduction
The January floods claimed about 22 lives in Australia. In the state of Rio de Janeiro, they killed over 911 people, making it the worst natural disaster in Brazilian history. For many analysts, like the two specialists quoted above, the higher number of victims in Brazil was the direct result of political negligence. reflecting the huge gap between the two countries in terms of prevention, infrastructure and housing. Their comments were reproduced by numerous news sites in Brazil and abroad, many of which endorsed the conclusion that lack of political will was by far the main factor behind the magnitude of the tragedy in Rio.
Before I went to my hometown, Nova Friburgo (the worst affected area in the country), I would have totally agreed with them. After all, anyone can see that Brazil has failed to implement decent disaster prevention measures and to resettle its millions of poor citizens living in high-risk areas. However, as I understood the dimension of the disaster, I came to realize that one factor was being largely underestimated: the force of nature. These analysts were making hasty conclusions, without much knowledge of what happened on the ground. In fact, for those who looked closely at the affected areas, this event was comparable to powerful earthquakes in its destructive power. According to George Sand, a seismologist at the University of Brasilia, the devastation caused by the storms in Rio could be compared to that provoked by an earthquake of magnitude 10 at the Modified Mercalli Scale (which ranges from 1 to 12).
Middle and upper class affected
Comparisons with the number of victims in Australia prove to be rather misleading, since Rio’s geography played a big role in amplifying the impact of the rains. While the Queensland floods affected mostly flat areas, the rains in Brazil poured over an extremely mountainous region, provoking flash floods and hundreds of deadly landslides. In fact, contrary to what conventional wisdom would presume, this tragedy also claimed the lives of many rich and middleclass Brazilians living in areas considered safe, like my hometown’s former mayor. For Paulo Canedo, head of a research team from the Federal University of Rio, perhaps half of the lives could have been saved by prevention measures, but the tragedy could not have been avoided.
Clearly, it would be both inaccurate and unfair to place the whole blame on political negligence, as specialists like Ms. Guha-Sapir have done. She surely had the best of intentions; but for someone in a position of global influence, this sort of criticism should be based on reliable information from the ground. Especially when backed by today’s powerful mass media, these statements become unquestionable truth for many. So if you’re given a voice, make sure you know what you’re saying: it could be on the headlines tomorrow.
Italian Politics: Troubled Waters
By Paolo MC Cravero
“Enough!” This was the cry echoing in hundreds of piazzas on Sunday, February 13th, as Italian communities across the globe demonstrated their disapproval of Berlusconi’s behaviour, work and cultural legacy. The message was simple: respect women’s dignity.
In a country where most public gestures have a political meaning, organizing a strictly non-partisan demonstration seemed nearly inconceivable. Organized by women and consisting (mainly) of women asking respect, plain and simple, it tasted almost revolutionary.
By demonstrating in the hundreds of thousands, crying out their unwillingness to keep living in such a misogynistic society, Italian women impressed both the world and themselves, breaking the stereotype of women as powerless and strictly domestic actors. In the meantime, the large part of Italian politicians continued to simply focus on clinging onto power, seemingly undisturbed by the perfect storm that was brewing.
All the elements of an outright tempest seem to be there: a rich and powerful man who allegedly lured a teenager into prostitution in a luxurious villa in Milan’s countryside. And then throw into the mix pimps, escorts, sex parties, lust crimes, and a dental-hygienist-turned-politician ready – for money or love, it still has to be confirmed – to cover all this mess up.
The question is: ‘How long can they keep the ship afloat before it sinks?’
Despite Berlusconi’s confident declaration that he will carry out his term until 2013, few politicians still believe his adage. The charges against him – paying for sex with an underage prostitute and abusing his office by seeking her release when she was arrested – are too serious not to worry.
In an ironic twist, three women will judge the man that, according to many Italians, has promoted through his media empire and personal behaviour a culture of sexism and machismo. The decision of Judge Cristina Di Censo to adopt a faster procedure in the trial given the “obviousness of the evidence” makes this storm seem more real and imminent.
The consequence is political paralysis: only one piece of legislation has been passed since the beginning of the year. Both right- and left-wing opposition parties are fighting to reshape political alliances in hopes of regaining long-lost popular support. Berlusconi’s political allies, unlike rats in a sinking ship, are still clinging on to their captain who, for the time being has managed to keep his head afloat. It seems they are hoping for a magic trick that will allow them to maintain the status quo in the eventuality of early general elections.
Meanwhile, the real problems of the country are not being addressed. Gender discrimination and sexism are simply ignored despite Italy being ranked 74th out of 134 countries by the World Economic Forum’s latest global gender gap report. Uganda ranked 33rd. Youth unemployment reached a new peak (29%) last December, and the overall growth – according to OECD data – is the lowest among the G7.
“Indignation” writes Stéphane Hessel, a ninety-three-year-old French war hero, in his unexpected best seller Indignez-vous! “is the reason for resistance”. Italian women (and men) participating in the February 13th demonstration have marched crying out their indignation, and shaking off years of indifference. Resistance to Italy’s unsustainable and corrupt politics-as-usual has at long last emerged.
Whether this newborn movement will be able to organize itself and delegitimize the current political environment remains to be seen. The hope is that, if in early April the captain will sink, it will not be too late to salvage the ship.
“Enough!” This was the cry echoing in hundreds of piazzas on Sunday, February 13th, as Italian communities across the globe demonstrated their disapproval of Berlusconi’s behaviour, work and cultural legacy. The message was simple: respect women’s dignity.
In a country where most public gestures have a political meaning, organizing a strictly non-partisan demonstration seemed nearly inconceivable. Organized by women and consisting (mainly) of women asking respect, plain and simple, it tasted almost revolutionary.
By demonstrating in the hundreds of thousands, crying out their unwillingness to keep living in such a misogynistic society, Italian women impressed both the world and themselves, breaking the stereotype of women as powerless and strictly domestic actors. In the meantime, the large part of Italian politicians continued to simply focus on clinging onto power, seemingly undisturbed by the perfect storm that was brewing.
All the elements of an outright tempest seem to be there: a rich and powerful man who allegedly lured a teenager into prostitution in a luxurious villa in Milan’s countryside. And then throw into the mix pimps, escorts, sex parties, lust crimes, and a dental-hygienist-turned-politician ready – for money or love, it still has to be confirmed – to cover all this mess up.
The question is: ‘How long can they keep the ship afloat before it sinks?’
Despite Berlusconi’s confident declaration that he will carry out his term until 2013, few politicians still believe his adage. The charges against him – paying for sex with an underage prostitute and abusing his office by seeking her release when she was arrested – are too serious not to worry.
In an ironic twist, three women will judge the man that, according to many Italians, has promoted through his media empire and personal behaviour a culture of sexism and machismo. The decision of Judge Cristina Di Censo to adopt a faster procedure in the trial given the “obviousness of the evidence” makes this storm seem more real and imminent.
The consequence is political paralysis: only one piece of legislation has been passed since the beginning of the year. Both right- and left-wing opposition parties are fighting to reshape political alliances in hopes of regaining long-lost popular support. Berlusconi’s political allies, unlike rats in a sinking ship, are still clinging on to their captain who, for the time being has managed to keep his head afloat. It seems they are hoping for a magic trick that will allow them to maintain the status quo in the eventuality of early general elections.
Meanwhile, the real problems of the country are not being addressed. Gender discrimination and sexism are simply ignored despite Italy being ranked 74th out of 134 countries by the World Economic Forum’s latest global gender gap report. Uganda ranked 33rd. Youth unemployment reached a new peak (29%) last December, and the overall growth – according to OECD data – is the lowest among the G7.
“Indignation” writes Stéphane Hessel, a ninety-three-year-old French war hero, in his unexpected best seller Indignez-vous! “is the reason for resistance”. Italian women (and men) participating in the February 13th demonstration have marched crying out their indignation, and shaking off years of indifference. Resistance to Italy’s unsustainable and corrupt politics-as-usual has at long last emerged.
Whether this newborn movement will be able to organize itself and delegitimize the current political environment remains to be seen. The hope is that, if in early April the captain will sink, it will not be too late to salvage the ship.
Robert Keohane at the Graduate Institute
by Tom Moerenhout
Mangroves in Thailand, © Livio Stocker, 2008
For the inauguration of the Center for Environmental Studies, Robert Keohane was greeted by a packed Auditorium Jacques-Freymond. His talk on the regime complex for climate change was followed
with great interest by students and professors alike. However, while he delivered his view on the challenges of addressing climate change with undeniable oratorical flair, he failed to convince all. In a rather
disappointing questions and answers discussion that followed the liberal-institutionalist’s presentation, Keohane did not acknowledge the opportunities different approaches to climate change offer. Although the inauguration of the Center for Environmental Studies was a success, the way forward will need to look further than Keohane did in his speech last month.
The launch of the new IHEID Centre for International Environmental Studies did not pass by unnoticed. A packed Auditorium Jacques-Freymond gathered to listen to one of the greatest liberal institutionalists of our time, Robert O. Keohane, discuss the regime complex for climate change. After a reading-of-my-notes keynote lecture, Keohane showcased his verbal talent during an interesting Q but left the audience hanging with a rather disappointing A.
Nothing new
Keohane met the expectations that one could have for a liberal institutionalist, and some of his ideas are well worth analyzing on a theoretical level, such as his strongly founded argument in favour of buyer liability in a cap-and trade regime. However, if the audience had hoped to learn something new, it left disappointed.
Origin of funds?
On many of his main arguments, Keohane ended up far from convincing. While justifying CBAs through “the serious threat of carbon leakage”, he did not address the serious doubts and scepticism of some respected NGOs concerning the empirically-verified potential of that phenomenon. Simply admitting that CBAs could be useful as a political tool for the US to accept a climate bill would have been more respectable for an academic of his standing. Similarly, Keohane did not address where the funds of climate change mitigation policies would have to come from. His belief in refusing to set any carbon reduction targets and in engaging private actors who will take the lead in innovation and carry the costs was rather simplistically argued.
Phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies?
Apart from falling short of convincing, Keohane also neglected crucial policy areas that could contribute to CO2 reduction, such as governmental renewable energy support mechanisms and the worldwide phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies. These subsidies are estimated to be on the order of US$500 billion, by coincidence close to the “impossible” amount that Lord Stern suggested was needed for climate change mitigation.
Go further than Keohane!
Formally, the centre certainly did not miss its start. Whether it wants to continue on Keohane’s line of thought, however, is something IHEID should seriously consider.
with great interest by students and professors alike. However, while he delivered his view on the challenges of addressing climate change with undeniable oratorical flair, he failed to convince all. In a rather
disappointing questions and answers discussion that followed the liberal-institutionalist’s presentation, Keohane did not acknowledge the opportunities different approaches to climate change offer. Although the inauguration of the Center for Environmental Studies was a success, the way forward will need to look further than Keohane did in his speech last month.
The launch of the new IHEID Centre for International Environmental Studies did not pass by unnoticed. A packed Auditorium Jacques-Freymond gathered to listen to one of the greatest liberal institutionalists of our time, Robert O. Keohane, discuss the regime complex for climate change. After a reading-of-my-notes keynote lecture, Keohane showcased his verbal talent during an interesting Q but left the audience hanging with a rather disappointing A.
Nothing new
Keohane met the expectations that one could have for a liberal institutionalist, and some of his ideas are well worth analyzing on a theoretical level, such as his strongly founded argument in favour of buyer liability in a cap-and trade regime. However, if the audience had hoped to learn something new, it left disappointed.
Origin of funds?
On many of his main arguments, Keohane ended up far from convincing. While justifying CBAs through “the serious threat of carbon leakage”, he did not address the serious doubts and scepticism of some respected NGOs concerning the empirically-verified potential of that phenomenon. Simply admitting that CBAs could be useful as a political tool for the US to accept a climate bill would have been more respectable for an academic of his standing. Similarly, Keohane did not address where the funds of climate change mitigation policies would have to come from. His belief in refusing to set any carbon reduction targets and in engaging private actors who will take the lead in innovation and carry the costs was rather simplistically argued.
Phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies?
Apart from falling short of convincing, Keohane also neglected crucial policy areas that could contribute to CO2 reduction, such as governmental renewable energy support mechanisms and the worldwide phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies. These subsidies are estimated to be on the order of US$500 billion, by coincidence close to the “impossible” amount that Lord Stern suggested was needed for climate change mitigation.
Go further than Keohane!
Formally, the centre certainly did not miss its start. Whether it wants to continue on Keohane’s line of thought, however, is something IHEID should seriously consider.
Conscientious Eating: A New Movement
By Jessie Luna
As students of international issues, we are aware of the growing problems of climate change and environmental degradation. We know about recycling, changing our light bulbs and using cloth bags. Even though our individual actions seem small, the idea is that if enough of us make these changes, it will have an impact.
Impact of eating choices
What is often left out of the debate is the impact of our eating choices. Fill out an ecological footprint calculator online (myfootprint.org) to see how many Earths it would take to sustain the world if everyone lived like you. You might be surprised at how much of your footprint comes from what you eat!
Major polluting factor
Consider the following facts (from FAO: Livestock’s Long Shadow) as a starter: Livestock production (especially cattle) creates 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions—more than all the world’s cars & SUVs combined. Over 7.4 million acres of forest (notably in the Amazon) are cut for pastures and feed crop land each year. Around half of US corn and soy is used as animal feed, where 6 to 10 pounds of grain becomes a single pound
of beef, which requires between 1500 and 2500 gallons of water. The livestock sector is also the leading contributor to water pollution by nitrogen and phosphorous in the US and pollution by pesticides and antibiotics.
Conscientious consumers
After years as a vegetarian, I have begun to adopt a new approach to eating, what I call “Conscientious Eating”. I’m not against all meat; I’m against buying food from a system that doesn’t take account of the ecological systems we depend upon. Conscientious eating means looking at the whole picture: the energy, resource use, pollution, human and animal labor that go into our food, and thus into our bodies. It means reducing meat consumption and thinking about local, organic, and fair trade. To achieve ecological sustainability, we must learn to be conscientious consumers in every aspect of our lives and think about the whole life cycles of the products that we choose to purchase and consume.
Let’s start the discussion on the website of The Acronym!
Impact of eating choices
What is often left out of the debate is the impact of our eating choices. Fill out an ecological footprint calculator online (myfootprint.org) to see how many Earths it would take to sustain the world if everyone lived like you. You might be surprised at how much of your footprint comes from what you eat!
Major polluting factor
Consider the following facts (from FAO: Livestock’s Long Shadow) as a starter: Livestock production (especially cattle) creates 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions—more than all the world’s cars & SUVs combined. Over 7.4 million acres of forest (notably in the Amazon) are cut for pastures and feed crop land each year. Around half of US corn and soy is used as animal feed, where 6 to 10 pounds of grain becomes a single pound
of beef, which requires between 1500 and 2500 gallons of water. The livestock sector is also the leading contributor to water pollution by nitrogen and phosphorous in the US and pollution by pesticides and antibiotics.
Conscientious consumers
After years as a vegetarian, I have begun to adopt a new approach to eating, what I call “Conscientious Eating”. I’m not against all meat; I’m against buying food from a system that doesn’t take account of the ecological systems we depend upon. Conscientious eating means looking at the whole picture: the energy, resource use, pollution, human and animal labor that go into our food, and thus into our bodies. It means reducing meat consumption and thinking about local, organic, and fair trade. To achieve ecological sustainability, we must learn to be conscientious consumers in every aspect of our lives and think about the whole life cycles of the products that we choose to purchase and consume.
Let’s start the discussion on the website of The Acronym!
Switzerland rejected in 2001 to join the European Union but the debate about an accession has been re-raised in the past months. Should Switzerland join the EU?
Europa - Nein, Danke!
The Swiss want to vote about everything and their political system is shaped in a way that allows for this. They not only vote about cutting trees in a Geneva. No, they also decide about important foreign treaties via national vote . In 1992, the Swiss rejected the accession to the European Economic Area. They repeated that verdict with regards to the European Union in 2001. The government, however, was in favor of the accession. How, then, did the Swiss electorate decide otherwise?
In short, the Government experienced trouble convincing the majority of the Swiss that they might benefit from the EU because due to an enduring widespread mistrust of supra-national entities. Remember, Switzerland only joined the UN only in 2002.
Milk Cow of Europe
The main argument against accession was a financial one. As a wealthy country, the fear of becoming the “milk cow” of Europe - that is, of taking charge of financing projects in which the Swiss do not directly profit, remains an argument that convinces many Swiss to say, “Non, merci!” While solidarity inside Switzerland is taken for granted, the same cannot be said for cross-border relations
Furthermore, the exchange of the Swiss Franc for the Euro and higher taxes do not tempt many. Although the bilateral Schengen Treaties have been accepted and the movement of EU citizens to Switzerland and vice versa has thereby been eased, the anguish that Switzerland could get overrun by foreigners as soon as it accepts membership provokes xenophobic voters. In particular, this is a strong argument for the voters on the far end of the right wing.
Sovereignty and Neutrality
On a more abstract level, the loss of sovereignty and the perceived incongruity of highly valued Swiss neutrality and EU foreign policy is used in the debate to deepen the personal and emotional angst of laws and tasks that could be imposed on Swiss citizens, without them finally deciding. The majority of the Swiss people do not always agree with what the government decides and thinks is best for them.
Take all these arguments together, add a few more, mix them well and you have a Swiss majority. And, as long as the Swiss are not convinced of the advantages, they will continue to stop the government from even thinking about accession.
Mais-Oui!
We need to get our sovereignty back
With over a hundred complex and static bilateral agreements,
Switzerland is already a de facto member of the EU albeit with a significant constraint: the country lacks any sort of voice in the decision-making process of the continent. With legislation rapidly increasing, this situation is not only untenable but is a certain disgrace for the Swiss understanding of participatory democracy. Only full and active membership in the EU can resolve this dilemma. Sovereignty in a globalised world works, after all, through participation not isolation.
We need to defend our interests sustainably
In the face of the changing economic and political landscape,
Switzerland, standing on its own, is a negligible player. Admittedly, as member of the EU, Switzerland would be but one of many, Yet at least we could make our voice heard, be part of a greater European dialogue and bring our economic and political expertise to bear.
We need continental solidarity
Acknowledging that Switzerland’s wealth is built upon trade with its European neighbours, solidarity with less developed regions on our continent is not only a moral imperative but also an economic necessity. Solidarity within Switzerland is taken for granted and seen as vital to the cohesion of our multi-ethnic society. There is absolutely no reason why this should not be as valid for its integration with Europe. Simply put, if our neighbours are better off, Switzerland will benefit too. This especially holds true for a country mainly exporting expensive goods of high quality.
Undoubtedly, t he European Union is far from perfect. It is, in fact, the worst form of cooperation in Europe. Except for all those others that have been tried. There is simply no alternative to working together as you can only play the game if you are part of it.
Marcel Bürkler & Sven Bisang (Members, Swiss national
committee of JEF, a pan-european youth NGO dedicated to European identity capacity building (www.jef.eu)
Politiques Migratoires sur le Fil
Alors que la question migratoire reste encore et toujours l’un des points les plus brûlants des politiques national-istes, la France s’est illustrée cet été aux yeux du monde par des pratiques gouvernementales « sur le fil » de la légalité.
(C.R.) Le grand débat sur l’identité nationale, la polémique sur la burqa, la question de la déchéance de la nationalité pour certains crimes et délits, commencent à peser lourd sur l’ardoise française de la xénophobie. Et comme si toutes les dissonances de l’année en cours ne suffisaient pas, la polémique autour des démantèlements de camps illégaux occupés par certaines populations « cibles » ne fait qu’enfler.
Droit souverain de la France, ou actes repressifs illegaux ?
Si la critique aveugle du gouvernement n’apporte, certes, rien au présent débat, il apparaît cependant important à l’inverse de se demander où se trouve le légal de l’illégal de cette affaire. Il semble a priori que la question de la reconduction aux frontières de membres de l’Union Européenne en infraction avec les politiques nationales du pays d’accueil puisse être envisagée nominativement, pour autant qu’elle ne contrevienne pas aux droits fondamentaux des personnes. En revanche, la circulaire IOC/K/10/881/J datée du 5 août 2010, et signée de la main du directeur de cabinet du Ministère de l’Intérieur, visant explicitement certaines populations, pourrait contrevenir au droit européen, et au principe constitutionnel français d’égalité.
Mais en définitive, au-delà de ces questions légales majeures, il reste que la stigmatisation d’un peuple, inscrite noir sur blanc sur une circulaire ministérielle, fait froid dans le dos. Quels que soient les motifs « sécuritaires » invoqués pour la justifier.
Droit souverain de la France, ou actes repressifs illegaux ?
Si la critique aveugle du gouvernement n’apporte, certes, rien au présent débat, il apparaît cependant important à l’inverse de se demander où se trouve le légal de l’illégal de cette affaire. Il semble a priori que la question de la reconduction aux frontières de membres de l’Union Européenne en infraction avec les politiques nationales du pays d’accueil puisse être envisagée nominativement, pour autant qu’elle ne contrevienne pas aux droits fondamentaux des personnes. En revanche, la circulaire IOC/K/10/881/J datée du 5 août 2010, et signée de la main du directeur de cabinet du Ministère de l’Intérieur, visant explicitement certaines populations, pourrait contrevenir au droit européen, et au principe constitutionnel français d’égalité.
Mais en définitive, au-delà de ces questions légales majeures, il reste que la stigmatisation d’un peuple, inscrite noir sur blanc sur une circulaire ministérielle, fait froid dans le dos. Quels que soient les motifs « sécuritaires » invoqués pour la justifier.
