Connect with us

Green Planet

Greed is good…but only for cancer

Published

on

Don’t be bad with 1%, don’t accuse them for having it all and doing nothing to earn it. 99% firmly believes that a greed is good… Spoiling mood, but being good for your food, as it should?

Amidst the many maladies of today’s global society, a tide of optimism brought by the latest cancer research news reflects a defiant response to one of the biggest challenges facing humanity. But although massive investments that involve venture capital companies and funds may be necessary for the pursuit of current and future large-scale scientific projects and ambitions, it is still sensible to ask the following questions: To what extent should capitalism be credited for rapid progress in cancer research and treatment? Moreover, can the profit motive, being an essential feature of capitalism, justify future investments in bioscience and related fields?

American-born British politician Boris Johnson draws attention to the importance of these questions, as much as he draws attention to himself, as he visits the US for second time in three months. The charismatic London mayor and Conservative Party politician who will be returning to the Commons as an MP in May this year is a staunch defender of capitalism who is also very much keen to promote his image as a global statesman in the run-up to this year’s British general election. During his visit to Boston a few days ago he states that ‘capitalism is essential if are to meet the biggest challenges facing the human race’, including fight against cancer. Boasting patriotically about the British scientists’ recent achievements he complains that they are not making any profit from their work, that this is not justifiable and that we need venture capital to cure cancer. Speaking from what has been described as a life-science Mecca given its world’s top research institutions, big pharmaceutical companies and clinical collaborations, Mr Johnson does a very good job at promoting Britain as ‘the place to come and invest’. However his enthusiasm not only smacks of morbid excitement, it also entails an absurd logic as well as dangerous contentions.

Mr Johnson’s claim has, of course, an important connection with the relevant facts. Cancer is on the rise. In the UK for example, in 1992, the proportion of people who got cancer was 32%. This increased to 44% in 2010, and according to Macmillan this figure will continue to rise, reaching around 47 between 2020 and 2030. Similarly, Cancer Research UK most recent analysis shows that one in two people who were born after 1960 will be diagnosed with cancer. This prognosis is chilling enough. On the positive side of things, cancer survival in the UK has improved a great deal; it has doubled since the 1970s through earlier detection and improved treatment, and the records show that half of those diagnosed with cancer will survive for at least 10 years. The increase in efficient cancer treatments is thus quite encouraging; in 1992, only 21% of those who had cancer did not die from the disease, while in 2010 this percentage rose to 35% and by 2020 this will rise to 38% surviving cancer and dying from another cause.  

The implication of these figures and forecasts is that our society needs more resources and investments to cope with the challenges ahead. Since more people are likely to survive cancer, more people will need public health services. A major worry for the UK is that the National Health Service (NHS) – introduced by the post-war Labour Government in 1946 – will soon be brought to a standstill and unable to cope with the big increase in demand for services. Therefore whoever wins the next general election in the UK will have to do some very careful health care planning. Here is where Boris Johnson leaps in. The conservative London major who in 2013 said that economic inequality was useful because it encouraged people to work harder, argues that the Labour leader Ed Miliband suffers from ‘intellectual failure’ because he allegedly fails to grasp the fact that the profit motive can be both good and necessary for progress. Clearly, for Johnson, income inequality and the fact that the UK is the only G7 country where wealth inequality increased between 2000 and 2014, this being caused by the richest part of the population, is not a big problem.

One of Johnson’s points of inconsistency is that he also says in the same breath that capitalism is ‘compatible with satisfying the wants of the poorest and neediest in our country’. This means, to follow Johnson’s logic, that people like him – an upper-class Oxford graduate – are those who know best what the poorest people in a society really want and need. And this is absurd. High business acumen is good for business, however it does not follow that this disposition determines or that it is even compatible with one’s capacity to empathise let alone understand the poor. And anyway, what are the wants and needs of the poorest members of a society? Are they fundamentally different from the needs of those who are not poor? In thinking that the human needs are solely determined by their wealth and social status, Johnson exemplifies what Karl Marx once described the condition of ‘alienation’ in which people are divided from others, their world, their own activity and even themselves. And this goes for all people, whether workers or capitalists, poor or rich. Then, we may ask if it is Johnson who suffers from intellectual failure – capitalism-induced detachment.

Now even those who do not subscribe to the Marxist analysis of human nature and social conditioning could still appreciate the plausibility of the view that at least as far as health care is concerned, a major motivational drive is or should be altruism. Unless we are very sceptical, we might think that some form of practical philanthropy would exist in the absence of capitalism, motivated by motives other than profit making. Or at least, we have a good reason to believe that the profit motive will always be difficult to reconcile with our concept of morality. We need go no further than Michael Moore’s film Sicko which sends a powerful message that ‘we should have no talk of profit when it comes to helping people who are sick’.  Johnson, on the other hand, whilst thinking that Britain could have ‘great and glorious future’ outside the EU, recommends that in terms of future heath care projects, we need to be ‘more ambitious, more tycoon-like, more ready to build vast commercial empires: in short, to be more American in our outlook.’

To add the twist, if not ambiguity, Johnson also believes that venture capitalists who invest in cancer research are not motivated by the profit motive only; they are also ‘fired by a desire to better the world’. Who is such a better world aimed for? This question lends itself to Johnson’s most dangerous contention. The makers of the glorious future Johnson envisages are people like scientists and successful businessman, in other words those with high IQ who, according to him, stand a better chance of being wealthy. We should therefore be ploughing more resources into helping those with higher IQ’s. We cannot deny the fact, he goes on, that people with IQ’s below 85 are destined to be less wealthy. Now, we can spell out Johnson’s contention more clearly: the needs of the poorest members of a society are modest because they can never achieve much anyway. However capitalism, he thinks, even with its good old-fashioned profit motive, is best placed to respond to the needs of the poor. And once again, what are the needs of the poor? Do they need to be cured from cancer as much as the rich people do? Do they need to eat healthy food, stop smoking, moderate their alcohol intake, play tennis and relax in art galleries? Are they even capable of appreciating art? And if the answers to these questions are ‘no’, in what sense is Johnson’s better world better for such people also?

This line of questioning could force Boris Johnson to make himself clear as a proper Nietzschean fancying  himself a hero from Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged who represents ‘the men on strike against an altruist-collectivist society’. In the meantime, his competence with the monoclonal T-cells coupled with his fuzzy logic and dangerous views leaves the British voters and the world at any rate puzzled about his blazing advertising of capitalism as a cure for cancer. Some will also wonder whether Johnson’s clumsiness amount to no more than a desperate cover-up for the fact that capitalism itself is in the stage of cancer. And why not think this way; the very characteristic of cancer – its invasive growth – is what is has in common with modern capitalism. Like cancer, capitalism threatens to break down our society’s immune system, reversing also all the progress that has been made toward social equality and stability.  

The facts that scientists world-wide, those who are devoted to revealing the secrets of human life and how we can be protected from the most vicious diseases, need sufficient funds to support their research does not imply capitalists’ rightful ownership of their noble cause. Neither does it imply that capitalism helps cure cancer. Boris Jonson and his, and he calls them, transatlantic friends must be discouraged by a political environment they fear most: the environment that is sneery enough and depreciating about the very idea, if this means their idea, of suffering elevation and wealth creation. And not just in order to prevent absurdity, but more crucially to prevent a deceptively benevolent stroll down the Nietzschean road. We have been there once before.

Continue Reading
Comments

Green Planet

Climate Change Problem: an Emerging Threat to Global Security

Published

on

Climate Change is one of the greatest challenges faced by humanity. The Greenhouse–gas emissions and over-exploitation of natural resources result in a rise in temperature which brings floods, droughts, a rise in sea level, and other destructive events. The problem is that climate change is a global bad, and it requires collective efforts and cooperation to limit its effects. One state cannot control Climate change alone because it does not take it into borders. Formally, the climate change issue was a matter of low politics, but the inception of the 21st century brought an understanding that it poses greater threats than traditional ones. The Covid-19 plays a major role in the realization of steps taken towards climate cooperation. States often make climate promises but cannot fulfill these promises because of the fascination with development and ignore climate change. But now world leaders have realized that the lessons of COVID-19 can tackle global climate change problems otherwise it will make this world difficult to live in.

 The newly elected President of the United States (US) Joe Biden inaugurated a virtual climate change summit with 42 world leaders. It includes leaders from Russia, China, Turkey, Israel, India, Bhutan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Setting aside all the differences, he invited leaders from those countries that are a major contributor to Greenhouse gas emission and those who are most vulnerable to climate change risk. In this summit, the Biden administration asked the world leaders to take actions to combat climate change collectively as the climate is a global good and requires collective efforts to tackle climate change. Biden has announced an aggressive new goal policy for greenhouse gas emissions. 2030 committed the US administration to reduce its greenhouse gas emission to 50-53%. The National Intelligence Director of President Avril Haines told world leaders that the climate change issue is no longer remains a peripheral issue but at the center of foreign policy. Other states such as France and Russia also promised to limit their greenhouse gas emission to 42-46% by 2030. It also committed China to play its role in the summit by announcing its willingness towards coal reduction. India reiterated its target of 450 GW of non-renewable energy by 2030 and announced to launch the “US-India 2030 Climate and Clean energy Agenda 2030 Partnership”. The Brazilian Environment Minister argued they need funds to enforce their plan to eliminate deforestation and carbon emission from their country. Vice president Harris argued that climate actions are necessary to tackle climate crises and to promote job opportunities. . Now, the US has put climate change at the center of its security and foreign policy because climate change is not only changing the pattern of the environment but it speeds up the geopolitical competition, undermine security and provoking ethnic conflicts. The climate change results in cyclones, floods, the rising temperature that disrupts social and economic conditions that threaten food security and human security.

By exploring the climate solution, the virtual summit announced the need to increase the public finance for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries. Biden emphasized the importance of investment in the public and private sectors to achieve the collective goal of net zero-emission. Further, climate actions require cooperation at the national and sub-national governments to speed up efforts to transform communities in line with limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Another change that needs to be highlighted at the national level is that the government must not subsidize renewable energy industries and keep their prices high to contain their over-exploitation.  It is easy to make promises as states do, but the problems emerge in its implementation. For decades, climate change has raised concern but states often prioritize development over the environment. This is real-time for states to limit their emission and comply with the promises they have made in the summit otherwise it will lead to never-ended consequences.

COVID-19, a super-fast placed event that emerged from one part of the world and quickly spread throughout the entire world. By its speed of diffusion, it reduced all the emissions at an expensive cost, thus halting the global economy. So still we have time to think about other efficient means of emission reductions to prevent countries from the intolerable burden of Climate Change. But the challenge is how to keep that emission reduction after the pandemic. Second, just an as sharp and instant change of behavior is possible with COVID-19 so to deal with climate change a behavior change is also possible, thus shifting to the low carbon emission all depends on seriousness and credibility to the mortal threat. Third, a key implication of COVID-19 to climate change is that how to reorganize the economy so, in the post-pandemic world, it is the human interaction that would determine the organization of the economy. Thus future will determine whether a low contact economy with a clean environment would be a lower carbon emission economy or not. Further, states must focus on how to open up the economy in the Green Revolution. Another major issue which the world leaders failed to address is the global problem of Covid-19. Despite the technological advancement and huge development, zoom diplomacy began with a distorted voice from the most advanced countries of the world. There is a need to cooperate on a matter of Covid-19 so that states think on the wider notion of climate actions. Thus we have to use all these lessons in the context of climate change to make this world a better place to live in.

Continue Reading

Green Planet

Rails, Roads And Emissions

Published

on

It is common knowledge that emissions affecting climate are least for rail travel in comparison with airplanes or road vehicles.  Consequently the $80 billion allocated to rail in an otherwise laudable budget appears paltry. 

Why is the US not investing in rail?  The usual reason given is that distances are so vast that it’s a no-brainer for business travellers to rely on commercial airlines.  But the way the technology is advancing, and as Europeans (and the Chinese) have demonstrated, a network of high-speed rail can offer a greener alternative. 

Trains are getting faster and new innovations like tilting trains lower the cost of replacement tracks.  If 200 mph is being breached more often, then 250 mph should be in our sights.  And Elon Musk has proposed vacuum tubes to remove wind resistance and reach even higher speeds. 

Yet a 250 mph rail network with average speeds in excess of 200 mph would revolutionize the concept of travel.  New York to Chicago in five hours and east to west coast overnight with the possibility of visiting neglected areas out of reach with expressways and airplanes would bring new growth and dynamism where it is needed. 

A point to note is prevailing interest rates.  They are so low historically that railroad bonds at a competitive interest rate would be snapped up  especially if they were guaranteed by the government. 

While one can agree with the aims and compassion clearly evident in the president’s proposals, the process to achieve them is less clear.  In particular on climate change the goal of net zero emissions within a decade is laudable.  But a speedy switchover to electric vehicles raises questions: Simply, how?

The system is geared to internal combustion engines.  Mechanics train for years to become proficient.  Aside from that, has anyone wondered what happens to all those large electric car batteries when they have to be replaced?  Since lithium used in them is a finite resource, it would have to be recovered or the 80 million tons estimated to be the world’s store would eventually be depleted.  

Another issue is the electricity used to charge the batteries.  If it comes from a coal-fired plant, are we back to square one?  Currently about a quarter of the electricity generated in the US comes from coal. Of course dealing with pollution at the source (like a coal plant) is easier. 

The number of Americans living paycheck to paycheck (roughly half) is just one more reason the changeover to electric vehicles might take a while; they just don’t have the funds.  Add to these numbers the elderly living on fixed incomes or the ranks of the unemployed and one can understand the scale of the problem.  

One can laud the US president’s goals but we need to see some action (even proposals) to facilitate them. 

Continue Reading

Green Planet

Global Environmental Governance and Biden’s Administration

Published

on

Being the largest emitter of greenhouse gas in the world, it is the responsibility of U.S to contribute expeditiously to manage the environmental issues at domestic and international level but the previous government, under the leadership of Trump, took back seat and reversed all the decisions of Ex-president Barack Obama to combat the climate change. Unlike this, New Elected President, Joe Biden, who is very enthusiastic and firm to fulfill all the promises regarding climate change which were done during the general election’s campaign. Moreover, he views climate change a thwart to national security. One of the biggest achievements associated with Biden’ administration regarding environmental issues is to bring U.S back into Paris Climate Accord and brought executive order’’ Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring science to tackle the climate crisis’’ on the surface.

A flurry of changes to U.S environment policy is going to play a constructive role in global environmental governance under Biden administration. Even before elections, climate change was one of the top priorities and aimed to put the U.S on a path which leads towards ‘’ Zero Net’’ greenhouse gas emission. In the very early of His office days, He is very committed to deal with the climate change as they hosted ‘’ Climate Day’’ to introduce government climate centric approach to emphasize on the climate change.  Biden administration also ordered to revoke a permanent issued for Keystone XL oil pipeline which trump issued for extraction of oil and energy which is dangerous to national ecosystem. In addition to this, they are also very active to promote US role to tackle the climate change at domestic and abroad. At domestic level, Biden’s actions are speaking louder than the words as he has ascribed the climate crisis with a national emergency. At the time of his inauguration, Biden said: ‘’ A cry for survival comes from the planet itself, a cry that can’t be any more desperate or any clearer’’. He also directed his cabinet to work on the policy of ‘’ social carbon cost’’ to measure the cost of actions and how costs will impact the climate change. He endeavors to control the climate change by keeping a strict eye on the big project’s reviewing process before working under the National Environmental Policy Act which calculates the social costs of greenhouse gas emissions.

On international level, Biden has been striving to improve the spoil image shaped by the previous government regarding global environmental governance as he has declared to rejoin the Paris Climate accord which would help to reduce the greenhouse gas emission. In the result of this action, Biden was welcomed by the General Secretary of the United Nations and French Prime Minister Emmanuel Macron by saying ‘’ Welcome Back to the Paris Agreement’’. Moreover, Biden Administration is very determined to convene a global climate summit on the earth day to encourage leaders to align themselves with scientist to alleviate the impacts of climate change. On international forums, US need to cooperate and compel the economic trade partner to take actions to combat with climate crisis. One of the essential steps taken by the Biden administration is to manage the climate refugees which aim to make strategies to compensate the climate affected migrants.

The thin majority of democratic in the senate does not only limit the possibility for Biden to achieve climate change reforms along strong anti-climate lobbyist business group who are inimical to the reforms particularly relevant to vehicle, power plants and oil and gas drilling industries. Without new climate legislation from congress, it would be not an easy task to implement the climate agenda across the borders. The vocal resistance comes from the coal production sectors which result in burning of fossil fuels and caused of greenhouse gas emissions. Whereas, few sectors are opposing the agenda there are also companies specially electrical vehicles are exclusively offering assistance to Biden for the sustainable development. Undoubtedly, environmental organizations and scientists community applauded the Biden decisions but few business groups have also filed a lawsuit against Biden to not stop the new permit for oil and gas drilling. There are also concerned raised by the community that climate actions will delete many jobs and cause of upsurge in unemployment percentage across the federation.

It is very evident from the ambitions of Biden’s action regarding climate crisis that he is very interesting to mitigate and curb the climate change but it will require highly comprehensive strategy aims to manage the reforms in laws while taking congressmen in confidence because most of them are not in favor of climate actions due to clash of interests. On the other hand, there is need to work on renewable energy resources at domestic and international level and for this US should compensate the companies to compete with the old capitalized firms which do not want safe and peaceful planet. Moreover, there is need to bring reforms in existing environmental treaties and their compliance process which should be strictly followed by the harsh actions against the violators. The process of financing the agendas which are very environment friendly and transforming the resources to the periphery states should be done swiftly to improve the environment across the globe. The aims of achieving sustainable development should be promoted and supported by the US across the world.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending