Morts Musings

Bangladesh has only existed as an independent country since 1971. Before that it was part of Pakistan, & was known as East Pakistan, during the period between India’s partition and achieving it’s own independence.
In terms of it’s geography, the majority of Bangladesh occupies a low lying basin which contains the Ganges Delta; a confluence of the Ganges, Brahmaputra & Meghna Rivers. As such the majority of the country is very low lying, with the majority of the land being less than 5m above sea level. Historically this has lead to Bangladesh being very prone to flooding; It is both vulnerable to storm surges from Cyclones, and to flooding caused by the monsoons swelling the country’s great rivers, and, between these two factors, flooding is a reality which many Bangldeshis have to cope with annually.

Although there’s been a lot of talk in the news about the this year’s late monsoons, and the consequences this will have for India’s agricultural sector, it’s still looking like Bangladesh is going to be subject to it’s normal annual flooding over the next few months.
Last week I caught this video report from the BBC, part of a series which highlights the plight of Bangladesh’s poor as they prepare for the annual deluge. It not only gives some insight into the terrible conditions which these people have to endure as part of their day-to-day lives, but also highlighted, for me, how vulnerable the residents of Bangladesh are to the effects of global warming; With ~50% of the country lying at 3m above sea level, or less, it’s easy to see how even a modest rise in sea levels would render much of the country uninhabitable. This would be a disaster for any nation, but with Bangladesh being a relatively poor nation, yet at the same time being the world’s 7th most populous (~150 million people), it’s quite clear that it’s people stand to suffer more than most if climate change predictions are correct.

As the BBC report made me realise, it’s people who live in these marginal environments who are going to be the first to really feel the impact of climate change, and some of those interviewed in the series are claiming that they are already seeing a difference in the pattern, and severity, of the annual flooding!
Debates about computer models, and statistics, thrown back and forth between the pro- & anti- anthropogenic climate change camps are all very well, and honest discussion of the facts we have is absolutely a necessity, but it seems somewhat asinine to be continuing the debate about whether there is a problem when people on the ground are already observing a change. Surely now is the time to start taking serious action on the issue of climate change, before more countries start to suffer catastrophic, way of life changing, weather patterns!

In the mean time, spare a thought for the poor of Bangladesh who, over the next couple of months, are going to be dealing with the floods; Think about that next time you’re cursing the wet British summer, by comparison we have it easy… for the moment!
The BBC report also mentioned the work which Oxfam, amongst other charities, are doing to help preparations for this years Bangladesh Floods, so if you can afford to spare more than just a thought for Bangladesh’s poor take a look at Oxfam’s campaign page to see how you can get involved!

So, after much build up, and anticipation, the G8 have had their climate change meeting in L’Aquila, but what did it achieve?
On the positive side, there was a general agreement that we should try to prevent global temperatures from rising by more than 2 degrees celsius above their 1900 levels, a level beyond which the Earth’s climate system might be become dangerously unstable, according to the UN.
While I think this recognition of the need for action is certainly a good thing, you’ll have to excuse me if I’m not terribly impressed. Afterall, if this 2 degree rise really would spell disaster for human society, and the planet’s life as a whole, it’s hardly a great step forward to acknowledge that we should try to prevent it. To me it’s more akin to saying that one should try to avoid putting one’s head in a hungry lion’s mouth, or placing sensitive body parts in an operational food blender, i.e. it’s common bloody sense!
So, while I find the statement, a little comforting; at least the gravity of the threat that climate change poses is now being publically acknowledged by the international group who has the most chance of actually doing something about it. I’m still not sure that very much substantive has really been achieved this week!
Afterall, if the best statement they can come up with is that we shouldn’t completely bugger up the world’s climate, then my cynical mind has to think it’s likely because that’s the most positive thing the assembled world leaders managed to agree on, and, if that’s the case, it infers that there’s an awful lot they didn’t manage to come to any sensible agreements on.

Ok, ok, maybe I’m being unfair, the G8 did undertake to reduce their emissions by 80% by 2050, a noble goal indeed, but also a pretty hollow one when no interim targets were set to act as markers on the path to this realising this dramatic cut. I mean, really, it’s the easiest thing in the world for leaders to commit their countries to targets whose deadlines lie far beyond their own term of office; it’s just gloss, PR, something positive to crow about which will require no effort on their part what so ever! It would appear that I’m not alone in thinking this either, Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General, has publicly criticised the G8 for their failure to set any interim targets for reduction in emissions too. He has stated that big cuts are needed in the near future, and that a 2020 target for reduction in emissions should also be set. I have to say I agree. If it’s important to make these levels of cuts by 2050, then, surely, the earlier we start the more chance we have of meeting the target? if we end up making great progress in the next decade or so then it takes some pressure off towards the end of 2050 deadline, whereas, if we leave it ’til the last minute, as seems likely from current signs, we might find that we’re not able to do enough fast enough, even with the best will in the world!

Ban, and I aren’t the only people who sceptical about the G8’s commitments, the, so called, G5, developing nations, weren’t too impressed by the 2050 pledge either, if their response is anything to go by. They’ve refused to sign up to a global target for a 50% reduction in CO2 emission by 2050, apparently wanting to see more action, and assistance, from the developed world before they’re willing to commit to such targets. On one hand I can see their point entirely, they shouldn’t have to forego the benefits that becoming a developed economy generally offers, just because they started this development later than America & the European nations, but I also have reservations. Currently a great deal of the West’s manufacturing is farmed out to these developing nations, because production is generally both cheaper, and less regulated, than it is in developed nations; for big business, with an eye only for the bottom line, it’s a no-brainer!

My concern is that this arrangement effectively gives everyone license to do very little about climate change now, while we still, maybe, have a chance of making a difference.

The West still gets to farm out a load of it’s manufacturing to third world countries, who refuse to take action on climate change, because the West isn’t doing more itself. So, we still get our cheap socks, and other little bits & pieces which keep us in the lifestyle we’ve all become accustomed to, while being able to feel that the developing world is still the problem, that they’re the ones who aren’t doing enough. When, in reality, a large part of their manufacturing is aimed at our consumers, & wouldn’t be happening but for the western demand for cheap goods.
I’m not sure there is an easy answer, but ultimately I think I large part of starting the ball rolling has to happen here in the West; We need to accept that cheap consumer goods come at a greater overall price, a toll that’s being stored up for our old age, and for our children. We need to be willing to pay a decent price for goods, so that wherever they’re produced it’s done with an eye to environmental costs, as well as mere unit cost and profit margin. Whether that means producing our goods here in the West, where environmental considerations are, to an extent, legislated for, or paying more to the developing world to have them produce our consumer toys in a more environmentally friendly manner.

Overall, although this week’s meeting has undoubtedly a positive step forward, in the sense that it has further raised awareness of the climate change, and acceptance that it is an important issue which will effect us all, I’m not sure that it’s actually managed to achieve very much of any susbstance. Lets hope the politicians show a little more willingness to commit to meaningful short term action when the UN meets in Copenhagen, in December, to discuss a strategy for reducing carbon emissions between 2012 and 2050.
I won’t be holding my breath, but here’s hoping!

Have just read Robert Peston’s column over at the BBC site, and thought it was such a good, simple, explanation of the what went wrong with the banking system over the last decade that it was worth highlighting for any readers who might be interested in these kinds of things (& really everybody should be concerned about this issue, because unless there are significant changes in the way that the banks are regulated we’re probably going to see a similar “boom and bust” happen all over again in a couple of decades!)


As Peston explains, the miraculous growth which the banks saw, over the last decade or so, was very much the result of smoke and mirrors, and rash gambles, rather than because our bankers are financial geniuses with a previously unknown level of insight into the ways the markets work. In short, their stroke of genius was simply to lend more than the banks could afford to based on their levels of real assets, a strategy that worked fine, up until the point that the bubble burst.


To my mind, coming up with, and following, this irresponsible business strategy in no way merited the high wages, and ludicrous bonuses, the bankers paid themselves. We could have just grabbed a few gambling addicts, put them in charge of our financial institutions, and would probably have ended up with the same net result in the end, and for much lower wages in the mean time.
Anyway Robert Peston says it all a lot better, and with more clarity than I can manage, so go read his piece here: Why bankers aren’t worth it