The article ‘The dry last ditch’ was published in The Economist on October 23rd 2008. The link to the article is: http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12480905 .
‘The dry last ditch’ focuses on the problems of Australia’s biggest river system; the Darling and the Murray River, both severely affected by the worst drought of the century in addition to constant farm irrigation. The Australian federal government as well as the New South Wales (NSW) state government is trying to hinder the complete ‘annihilation’ of this river system on which so many depend with the water –buyback – scheme. This scheme involves buying water entitlements from farmers, which would reduce the amount of farm irrigation that uses up unusually high amounts of water. An example of this is Toorale, a 91000 hectare large farm, whose antique water storing system’s inefficiency allows for the evaporation of 2 meters of stored water per year. The government hopes to send back 14 billion liters to the rivers, which was the amount Toorale was allowed to take from the rivers per year.
However, the price for this project is a big one and not one that everyone is willing to pay. Toorale again plays a major part, since the abolition of the farm, the most productive of the reason, would shrink the economy by 10%, in addition to creating unemployment. The debate of keeping current conditions or aiding an environmental cause remains disputed. Though the water buyback plan isn’t perfect, it seems as though at the moment there is no other way to avert an oncoming environmental disaster. If the goal of cutting the water consumption of these rivers by 53% is an attainable goal is the question…
Donnerstag, 30. Oktober 2008
Samstag, 18. Oktober 2008
One World? Summary
The main focus of this article is the theory that globalization, although it is a changing force in today’s society, the extent of the progress it has brought about is exaggerated since today’s globalization can be seen as a mere continuation of globalization that happened a century earlier. Globalization at present is driven by two forces: technology and liberalization. They enable the natural barriers of time and space to be overcome by easing means of communication, lowering communication costs, and lowering foreign trade barriers. As a result, trade has increased twice as fast s output and cross-border trade in shares is ten times as fast. Although these facts do portray the clear trend towards globalization, it can be exaggerated. For example, it is said that globalization today is blurring the lines between nations by opening trade barriers yet Britain and France are only slightly more open to trade than they were in 1913 and Japan has in fact become less open now. Another example is that product markets are still more integrated in their own countries than in other nations. Finally, labor toady is less mobile than it was in the 19th century because factors such as language, culture and qualifications hinder the cross border integration of labor forces. When looking back at globalization, around 50 years before WWI it was driven mainly by falling transport costs, like it is driven by falling communication costs today. However, after WWI the nations, in a way, ‘crawled back into their shells’ and had fierce restrictions on capital movement. Such a move would be virtually impossible in today’s society, since increased international integration, giant multinationals and easy communication pathways would make such a move incredibly difficult to follow through with. on the whole, though globalization may not be as progressive as it is portrayed, this time around it would be much harder to undo.
Freitag, 17. Oktober 2008
Globalization Definitions Summary
Globalization: The process of the individual’s livelihood becoming more independent through economic, specifically business, advancements. Increased international trade and the outsourcing of factories are examples of effects of globalization.
'Fewer creatures great and small' Article Summmary
The article ’Fewer creatures great and small' was printed in 'The Economist' on October 16th 2008. Here is the link to the article: http://www.economist.com/world/international/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=12432305
This article is about how, due to mankind, the rate of extinction is at an all-time high and though steps such as the Convention of Biological Diversity have been taken, no real effort is being made to preserve the world’s biodiversity. The formerly mentioned treaty was signed by nearly all governments in 2002 and vowed to significantly reduce the rate of loss of biodiversity by 2010. However, this goal seems impossible to reach now, as the newest version of the red list of threatened species published by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) shows that, for example, 223 species whose condition had changed from the previous year are now closer to extinction. A major factor affecting this rate is global warming, which according to predictions, could kill 20 -30% of species if global average temperatures increased by more than 2°C. What people don’t realize is that many benefits come from natural processes, for example, the pollination of crops, whose losses cost the world inordinate amounts of money each year. A solution, though it is not flawless, was proposed by Johan Eliasch. He stated that if forests were included in the carbon market, therefore forcing the reduction of deforestation (which accounts for very high carbon emissions), then global warming could be slowed and biodiversity could be saved, in addition to poverty being lessened. The problem with this plan is that it would cost the world huge, according to predictions, $4 billion a year for 5 years and a further $ 11-19 billion until 2020. However, deforestation rates would decrease by 75% by 2030 and carbon emissions would sink by 50%. At the moment, the world will have to make do with the small steps made by a small percentage of the world’s countries. Yet at present moment, the economic crisis is probably the primary problem on these governments’ minds.
.
This article is about how, due to mankind, the rate of extinction is at an all-time high and though steps such as the Convention of Biological Diversity have been taken, no real effort is being made to preserve the world’s biodiversity. The formerly mentioned treaty was signed by nearly all governments in 2002 and vowed to significantly reduce the rate of loss of biodiversity by 2010. However, this goal seems impossible to reach now, as the newest version of the red list of threatened species published by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) shows that, for example, 223 species whose condition had changed from the previous year are now closer to extinction. A major factor affecting this rate is global warming, which according to predictions, could kill 20 -30% of species if global average temperatures increased by more than 2°C. What people don’t realize is that many benefits come from natural processes, for example, the pollination of crops, whose losses cost the world inordinate amounts of money each year. A solution, though it is not flawless, was proposed by Johan Eliasch. He stated that if forests were included in the carbon market, therefore forcing the reduction of deforestation (which accounts for very high carbon emissions), then global warming could be slowed and biodiversity could be saved, in addition to poverty being lessened. The problem with this plan is that it would cost the world huge, according to predictions, $4 billion a year for 5 years and a further $ 11-19 billion until 2020. However, deforestation rates would decrease by 75% by 2030 and carbon emissions would sink by 50%. At the moment, the world will have to make do with the small steps made by a small percentage of the world’s countries. Yet at present moment, the economic crisis is probably the primary problem on these governments’ minds.
.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)