Will the world leaders reach a consensus on climate change?

While the world is watching over the future course of actions the world leaders might agree to take on the issue of climate change two emerging players in the International community, India and China came forward with pointed thoughts on the issue. China has listed five points for wealthy countries to act on emission control. These points included a system for encouraging investment that cut poor-country emissions and share technology.

India, on the other hand, talked about a legislation it was creating to cut down its own emissions from power plants, agriculture, buildings, transportation and heavy industry.
Both India and China have been accused of not doing enough to cut carbon emissions. But these countries demand that rich nations must act decisively to their parts before taking poor countries on board.

Meetings between world leaders are currently going on to reach a consensus of climate change in the summit that is scheduled to be held in December in Copenhagen. The progress on climate negotiation is slow and a possible deal is not in sight. Still global warming is not going to wait for world leaders to agree or disagree. The world must be saved from an ecological disaster.
Undoubtedly, investment in energy efficiency and low-carbon energy sources will reduce dependence on oil and drive the economy. The investors in this sector need to be encouraged through a mutually agreed international climate regulation.

British Prime Minister recently came out with a significant proposal. He wants to bring poor countries on board by initiating a $100 billion program that would by financed by wealthier countries and the private sector. The program will help poorer nations develop low-carbon economies.

“ We must move toward resolving the issues that remain before Copenhagen. If it is necessary to secure agreement, I will personally go to Copenhagen to achieve it. I will be urging my fellow leaders to do the same”, he confirmed his commitment to a consensus on climate change.
Gordon advocates a common economic goal to establish a new system of governance. To achieve this a clear commitment from the Group of 20 is needed to provide a framework for jobs, growth and stability over the medium to long term — one that perhaps even includes objectives for global growth.

It is interesting to note how far India can go to demonstrate to the world its commitment for curbing carbon emission. India has reaffirmed its commitment to develop solar energy as a renewable means of bringing electricity to more than 400 million people now living without it. India's opposition parties needed to understand the cost of depleting the ozone layer if environment friendly industries are not developed. The opposition parties in India are adverse to compromises that could sacrifice development.

At this moment world leaders must overcome their narrow international interests and help negotiators to finalize a deal before the Copenhagen summit.

The stage has been set at the United Nations where high-level summit meetings aimed at reaching consensus are expected to bring the world temperature to 2 degrees Fahrenheit below the current rate of global warming. It is encouraging to note that the developing countries have agreed on the need to mitigate their emissions, but a mandatory limit has been rejected if no financial or technical support came forth from wealthy nations.

In this respect Europe and United States widely disagree with each other. Europe is willing to donate $2 billion to $15 billion a year for the next decade to help less developed nations adapt to climate change. The Obama administration has not offered anything close. The Europeans also want binding, near-term targets for developed nations. Bush administration had rejected the Kyoto Protocol because it did not set limits on emissions from China and other major developing nations. Under Obama the United States stand a chance to correct mistakes of the previous administration. However, US is not supportive of any international treaties, but would rather enact its own domestic legislation.

The United States and China must reach a consensus on curbing emission, as the both account for about 40 percent of world emissions.

Cautioning the world and especially USA, Nobel prize winner Princeton economist, Paul Krugman recently said in his column in the New York Times, “It’s important to understand that claims of immense economic damage from climate legislation are as bogus, in their own way, as climate-change denial. Saving the planet won’t come free (although the early stages of conservation actually might). But it won’t cost all that much either.”

Krugman suggests that US is “burning large amounts of coal, oil and gas in ways that don’t actually enhance our standard of living — a phenomenon known in the research literature as the “energy-efficiency gap.” The existence of this gap suggests that policies promoting energy conservation could, up to a point, actually make consumers richer.

“Second, the best available economic analyses suggest that even deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions would impose only modest costs on the average family.”

Krugman calculated the great burden on American public if emissions were not limited. “By 2050, when the emissions limit would be much tighter, the burden would rise to 1.2 percent of income.”

Experts agree that the US can lead the world in reaching an agreement on climate change under President Obama.

Will Obama succeed in providing universal healthcare?

The conservatives have begun the last battle to oppose President Obama's initiative to reform healthcare system in this country aimed at providing affordable coverage to all Americans. During the President's speech at the joint session of US congress, Joe Wilson, a Republican lawmaker protested uttering the phrase, 'You lie!' At a conservative protest rally in Washington, references were made to the President that critics term as 'racially motivated'. Questions about Obama's citizenship have also been raised in some quarters.

But Obama has made it clear not to be distracted from his mission of reforming healthcare in the country because of such incidents. White House considers such allegations as efforts by interest groups to divert the nation's attention from the great debate that has engulfed the nation. The president wants to provide a system in which every citizen is able to choose an affordable healthcare insurance policy based on competitive prices to be made available in the market.

Currently, Americans have to depend on an insurance plan that is offered by their employers. Once the reform plans is turned into a legislation by the US Congress and signed by the President, Americans will be empowered to choose from a wide variety of health plans. The insurance companies would be motivated to charge affordable rates in order to attract more customers. At the same time insurance companies that failed to treat customers with respect and indulged in overcharging for services would be discouraged and eventually would have no option than to function in a fairer manner.

As the President elaborated in his speech at Capitol Hill, the bills that are pending in the Congress would create an exchange system in which the consumer would have access to prices of various plans. It will then be easier to compare the prices before choosing a suitable plan. The companies who would participate in such an insurance exchange would work on a mandate to offer coverage to whoever wanted to buy a plan without discriminating on the basis of age, gender or health status.

It is estimated that approximately 25 million people might be benefited by the new system. However, those already having an insurance will continue to keep their plans. The President has made the healthcare reform policy as his topmost priority as he declared that he wanted to be the last President to tackle this issue. It means that he is determined to bring a conclusion to the healthcare reform that has been debated for decades without the nation reaching a final stage. While arguing in the favor of the universal healthcare Obama thought it important to clarify a number of doubts that have been flown around by those who want status quo.

Assuring elderly citizens Obama made it clear that he was committed to protect the existing government run healthcare scheme, 'Medicare', adding that the notion that the reform policy would deny care to elderly was unfounded. It is clear that the President is keen to bring a plan that is accepted by both his supporters and the opponents. The nation remains deeply divided on the issue and obstacles are not yet cleared to pass a bill that reflects the vision of the President.

The process to offer universal healthcare was started by the former President Bill Clinton in 1993. Clinton began the process that remained unfinished during his presidency. President Obama has taken the responsibility to end this process. To reach his goal he showed his willingness to work with Republicans as he indicated during his speech when he announced to incorporate an idea from his former rival Senator John McCain that poor should be protected against mounting medical expenses that could drive people to bankruptcy.

Obama is using economic and bipartisan wisdom to fulfill his promises made during the 2008 presidential campaign. He definitely has the support of the majority of Americans. However, the battle is not yet over. The opponents of reform are bent upon waging a last battle that needs to be fought by Obama supporters with patience.

Will Obama succeed in providing universal healthcare?

The conservatives have begun the last battle to oppose President Obama's initiative to reform healthcare system in this country aimed at providing affordable coverage to all Americans. During the President's speech at the joint session of US congress, Joe Wilson, a Republican lawmaker protested uttering the phrase, 'You lie!' At a conservative protest rally in Washington, references were made to the President that critics term as 'racially motivated'. Questions about Obama's citizenship have also been raised in some quarters.

But Obama has made it clear not to be distracted from his mission of reforming healthcare in the country because of such incidents. White House considers such allegations as efforts by interest groups to divert the nation's attention from the great debate that has engulfed the nation. The president wants to provide a system in which every citizen is able to choose an affordable healthcare insurance policy based on competitive prices to be made available in the market.

Currently, Americans have to depend on an insurance plan that is offered by their employers. Once the reform plans is turned into a legislation by the US Congress and signed by the President, Americans will be empowered to choose from a wide variety of health plans. The insurance companies would be motivated to charge affordable rates in order to attract more customers. At the same time insurance companies that failed to treat customers with respect and indulged in overcharging for services would be discouraged and eventually would have no option than to function in a fairer manner.

As the President elaborated in his speech at Capitol Hill, the bills that are pending in the Congress would create an exchange system in which the consumer would have access to prices of various plans. It will then be easier to compare the prices before choosing a suitable plan. The companies who would participate in such an insurance exchange would work on a mandate to offer coverage to whoever wanted to buy a plan without discriminating on the basis of age, gender or health status.

It is estimated that approximately 25 million people might be benefited by the new system. However, those already having an insurance will continue to keep their plans. The President has made the healthcare reform policy as his topmost priority as he declared that he wanted to be the last President to tackle this issue. It means that he is determined to bring a conclusion to the healthcare reform that has been debated for decades without the nation reaching a final stage. While arguing in the favor of the universal healthcare Obama thought it important to clarify a number of doubts that have been flown around by those who want status quo.

Assuring elderly citizens Obama made it clear that he was committed to protect the existing government run healthcare scheme, 'Medicare', adding that the notion that the reform policy would deny care to elderly was unfounded. It is clear that the President is keen to bring a plan that is accepted by both his supporters and the opponents. The nation remains deeply divided on the issue and obstacles are not yet cleared to pass a bill that reflects the vision of the President.

The process to offer universal healthcare was started by the former President Bill Clinton in 1993. Clinton began the process that remained unfinished during his presidency. President Obama has taken the responsibility to end this process. To reach his goal he showed his willingness to work with Republicans as he indicated during his speech when he announced to incorporate an idea from his former rival Senator John McCain that poor should be protected against mounting medical expenses that could drive people to bankruptcy.

Obama is using economic and bipartisan wisdom to fulfill his promises made during the 2008 presidential campaign. He definitely has the support of the majority of Americans. However, the battle is not yet over. The opponents of reform are bent upon waging a last battle that needs to be fought by Obama supporters with patience.

India must see eye to eye with China on border dispute.

China's claim over a large part of India's North Eastern boarder area in Arunachal Pradesh has forced India to reinforce its resources for defending its fragile territories in the Himalayas.
China doesn't recognize Arunachal Pradesh which is home of Monpa people who revere Dalai Lama. In fact the sixth Dalai Lama was born in this region. The basis of China's claim is the Tibetan heritage of this region. Indian policy to accept China's sovereignty over Tibet hasn't helped improved the relation between the two countries. Even if India provided shelter for the Dalai Lama and his government-in-exile, a number of politicians including some so called Hindu nationalists were not happy with this arrangement. Many Indian politicians leaning to both left and right favor a more appeasing policy towards China that is slated to be the world's topmost economic power in near future.

China has grown increasingly hostile to the Dalai Lama after severe ethnic unrest in Tibet in 2008. This year, it turned its diplomatic guns on India over Arunachal Pradesh. In order to counter the Chinese threats which deployed large contingent in the border areas of Arunachal Pradesh, the Indian military decided to add two divisions of troops, totaling 50,000 to 60,000 soldiers, to the border region over the next several years. Now thousands of Indian and Chinese forces are facing each other in the boarder region that hints at difficult times ahead for India which has been marching forward with an impressive economic growth in the recent years.

The Chinese have two major claims on Indian territory. China is in occupation of approximately 38,000 square kilometers of Indian territory in Jammu and Kashmir where it claims over Aksai chin. China claims approximately 90,000 square kilometers of Indian territory in Arunachal Pradesh and about 2000 square kilometers in the Middle Sector of the India-China boundary. Also Pakistan ceded 5,180 square kilometers of Indian territory in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir to China.

In spite of trade agreements signed between the two countries China couldn't hide its expansionist ambitions. During the Indian Prime Minister’s visit to China in June 2003 India and China signed a Memorandum on Expanding Border Trade. The Indian side agreed to designate Changgu of Sikkim state as the venue for border trade market, while the Chinese side agreed to designate Renqinggang of the Tibet Autonomous Region as the venue for border trade market. In 2005 China and India affirmed their readiness to seek a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable solution to the boundary issue through equal and friendly negotiations.
For decades India followed a flawed policy to neglect development in the Himalayan region that was changed a few years ago. As a result road developments and other activities began in areas such as, Jammu and Kashmir region and the North Eastern states. India has undertaken road construction along 608 Kilometers in Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh.

Undoubtedly China is doing everything to throttle India's economic and political rise, especially in Asia. It unsuccessfully tried to block a $2.9 billion loan that the Asian Development Bank finally granted to India for water projects in Arunachal Pradesh.

Experts recognize China's historical expansionist designs in Asia. According to Dr. Sue Gronewold, Chair, History Department at Kean University and author of 'Beautiful Merchandise', who teaches China's cultural history, commented:
“Border disputes are always messy and extremely difficult to disentangle since they involve complicated histories, competing claims, issues of nationalism and national security....From Tibet to the other border disputes with India to the islands in the China Sea to continuing border disputes with Russia and even Korea, China believes that it has historic claims to these territories and can support its claims with historic evidences: treaties, claims, administrative structures, tributary arrangements. The period of early Qung Dynasty, in particular, was greatly expansionist when China sought to extend its formal control over a large number of regions that had been less formally part of the Chinese claims. (In others, like Korea, the disputes have an even older provenance.)”

China's friendship with Pakistan is well known and its tendency to assist communist uprising in Asian region has never been a secret. Its territorial claims on the basis of religion can't be entertained. In this context India has no option than to follow a tougher diplomatic stand against its giant neighbor. Dalai Lama, who is revered in America and honored by the United States Congress deserves honor and respect by the Indian government. India must reshape its policies towards its neighbors on the basis of its long term strategic goals. India needs to enlarge its vision and objectives to reach out the rest of Asia for establishing a mutually beneficial partnership.

Prosperity may not ensure equality for girls in Indian families.

Published in The South Asian Times.
Can prosperity bring equality for girls in Indian families? According to prevalent belief improvement in living condition provides less chances of discrimination against girls. However, this belief is contradicted in recent surveys that showed that girls in prosperous Indian families often don't enjoy equal status as boys.
Discrimination against girls in prosperous Indian families in India were discovered by a social anthropologist, Monica Das Gupta, who was quoted in an article published in the magazine section of New York Times. Das Gupta concluded in her research that bias against girls among educated and independent minded women in the rich state of Haryana in India was more pronounced than in poorer region.
Haryana and Punjab have highest percentage of missing girls who were aborted and killed as new-born or died in their first few years from neglect.
To make the matter worse, researchers in USA concluded that the trend of strong preference for baby boys were found among Asian Americans born and raised in the U.S. Joyce Moy, executive director of the Asian American/Asian Research Institute of the City University of New York was quoted in a recent newspaper article as saying that some family values, including preference for male child, prevalent in China, Korea and India have seeped into American culture among even young immigrants, despite the fact that historic reasons for the male preference are less relevant in the U.S.
“Development offers new opportunities to discriminate against girls”, claimed the article in the New York Times Magazine, “Development brings immense and valuable cultural change, much of it swiftly, but it doesn't necessarily change all aspects of a culture at the same rate”, said the author of the article, Tina Rosenberg.
The article broadly referred to findings done by Das Gupta. She commented that the cultural preference for boys are getting stronger in prosperous families. Higher education and income levels generate more resources. “If people are very poor, boys and girls are deprived equally. But as parents gain to tools to help their children survive and thrive they allocate advantages like doctor visits to boys and first born girls, leaving subsequent daughters behind”, commented the article inferring that in North India first born girls were less discriminated than second of third born girls.
Research showed that wealthier and more educated women face this same imperative to have boys as uneducated poor woman. “If birth of a girl in a poor family is disappointment , it is a tragedy for rich family to have a girl.”
It can be pointed out that development seemed to have failed to help Indian girls. In India, more than 1.5 million fewer girls are born each year than predicted. More girls die before the age of five.
Having more money, a better education and belonging to higher caste; all of these raise the probability that a family will discriminate against its daughters. While increasing women's decision making power would reduce discrimination against girls in some parts it would make thins worse in north and west of India.
When women's power is increased they use it to favor boys.
In an another article published in the Times, reference were made to comments by the Nobel Prize winner Indian economist Amartya Sen, who once commented that more than 100 million women are missing. Sen pointed out, “Women live longer than men, so there are more females than males in much of the world. India has 108 females for every 100 while China has 107. As an implication 107 million females are missing from the globe today.” By comparison, the U.S. is closer to average: 105 boys for every 100 girls this year.
It's one thing to wish for a boy or a girl when pregnant; but it's something else entirely to take steps to guarantee your wish comes true. In China and India the ratio of boys to girls is so lopsided that economists project there may be as many as 30 to 40 million more men than women of marriageable age in both countries by 2020. The growing imbalance slows in older age because women tend to outlive men, with the ratio in both countries falling to about 106 men per 100 women after age 60. But such figures are cold comfort for younger men who lack marriage prospects in their age groups.
New York Times journalist-activist Nicholas Kristof commented in his article, 'Girls vanish because they don't get the same health care and food as boys. In India they are less likely to be vaccinated than boys and are taken to hospital only when they are sicker. The girls in India from 1 to 5 years of age are 50 percent more likely to die than boys of their age. Ultrasound machines have allowed a pregnant woman to find out the sex of her fetus and get an abortion if it is female. More girls are missing because they are female than men are killed on the battle field in all the wars of the 20th century'.