Many Triple Crisis bloggers have been examining the effects of the global financial crisis on decision makers at the IMF, particularly as concerns the policy space of developing countries. In these two interviews, Triple Crisis blogger Ilene Grabel considers the effect of the crisis on the economics profession and, in particular, on the policy advice proffered to developing countries by the IMF during the current financial crisis. Ilene focuses on whether the crisis has created more space for developing countries to implement capital controls, and she also discusses the draft proposals for taxing the financial sector that the IMF has presented to the G20 for consideration at its June meeting in Toronto.
In many places, including Germany, the idea of a Green New Deal continues to be criticized from the well-known conservative angle and, more recently, from a progressive perspective as well. For instance, in a recently published book, “Green Capitalism: Crisis, Climate Change and Unchecked Growth,” the authors — Stephan Kaufmann and Tadzio Müller — equate the Green New Deal with the idea of “Green Capitalism.” Coming from a progressive perspective, they claim that these concepts only provide an ecological basis for perpetuating the existing and highly problematic economic system.
This new critique of the Green New Deal is not valid because it fails to understand that the Green New Deal does not entail a simple “greenwashing” of the existing system. In fact, the project would profoundly transform our economy and society.
The global Green New Deal is an imperative. Why?
The disaster has opened an information faucet, too: every day, more truth about the real costs of fossil fuels is emptying into public view. Desperate efforts to control both spills are underway.
After its 450-ton blowout preventer failed, BP tried burning the oil slick, creating the macabre spectacle of the ocean on fire.
The recent turmoil in Bangkok has hogged the headlines across Asia. But Bangkok is not the only city in turmoil. A few weeks ago, demonstrators in Athens fought an hours-long battle with police ending with three dead and scores injured. In neighbouring Turkey, police with batons had clashed with protesters hurling bricks and fire bombs. Just across the Mediterranean, the dispossessed of Cairo decided to occupy the city centre, sleeping on the streets. Further afield, the Maoists staged a massive protest in Kathmandu, and in the capital of Kyrgyzstan, an urban mob attacked the residence of the president, tore up the plants in his garden, and drove him from power.
Bangkok’s red-shirt protesters are demanding a general election, return of their hero, former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, and an end to the “double standards” resulting from the concentration of wealth and power. It is easy to see all these struggles as unique. The Greek riots are an offshoot of the country’s financial collapse. The Kathmandu demo is just one more stage in the country’s transition from monarchy. The Kyrgystani president had been elected to power on a surge of popularity, and had then turned out to be spectacularly corrupt. And so on. But what is really striking about all these incidents are the similarities. Big urban mobs. Fierce defiance. Security forces overstretched. States rattled. Middle class urbanites wringing their hands.
Arizona’s draconian anti-immigration law has galvanized popular protest and reignited demands in many quarters for an overhaul of US immigration policy. For those hoping that Obama’s next big legislative battle would be over climate change, however, the immigration firestorm could not have come at a worse time. Besides eclipsing climate change in public debate, the shadow of Congressional action on immigration scuttled the support of a key Republican, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, for a Senate climate bill. Without Lindsey, the climate bill doesn’t have a prayer.
But apart from political minefields, are immigration and climate change such separate policy issues? Not if climate change is understood, as it should be, as a problem requiring urgent action both not only to reduce carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions but also to adapt to much more volatile local and regional climatic conditions driven by global warming.
The first PrepCom negotiations for the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (popularly being called EarthSummit 2012 or Rio+20) began in New York at the United Nations on Monday and will end on Wednesday. One of the two themes for Rio+20 is institutional frameworks. I have already argued here that Rio+20 needs to shift the focus towards global governance for sustainable development. In order to do so, however, Rio+20 will also need to understand how we got to where we are in terms of global environmental governance.
International Climate Change Lottery: a financing mechanism that could actually be agreed in Cancún.
It is increasingly evident that a comprehensive climate change agreement is unlikely at the next climate change meeting (COP 16) in Cancún, Mexico, on December 2010. Finance – that is how much money will be provided, where will it come from, how will it be used, and who will hold the strings of the purse – is one of the main obstacles to agreement, compounded by deep distrust between developing and developed countries. While a comprehensive deal is unlikely, there are financing instruments that could conceivably be agreed upon in Cancún; for example, an International Climate Change Lottery.
The idea of an international goal-driven lottery has been regularly raised since the 1970’s. A good starting point is work by Addison and Chowdhury in 2003 analyzing the prospects of harnessing the world lottery market (worth US$126 billion and generating US$62bn in gross profits) for the purposes of development.