American tax havens threaten democracy

By economics

Tax havens

Tax havens allow the rich and multi-nationals to avoid paying taxes, and crooks and corrupt politicians to hide their ill-gotten gains. They are pernicious regulatory authorities which act against the interests of tax payers everywhere.  In any rational world, countries would co-operate to ensure they were not allowed to operate.  The fact they exist at all signifies the degree to which the rich and multi-nationals have manage to subvert the democratic process.

However, recently some progress has been made. The US introduced the Financial Assets and Compliance Act which forced foreign financial institutions to tell the US government about any American-owned assets held on their books. Also, by signing up to a Common Reporting Standard (CRS), the rest of the world agreed to exchange information about the assets each other’s citizens held in their banks. The attraction of Jersey, Lichtenstein, and the Bahamas began to diminish. But it was a false dawn, the demise of some tax havens merely presaged the arrival of others. The US was not party to the CRS agreement and US States such as Delaware, Nevada and South Dakota have been able to create lucrative financial instruments for companies and the rich to avoid tax.  In South Dakota the rich can create trusts for their own benefit. Once two years have elapsed, no creditor or tax authority can gain access to the money held.

The US has now overtaken the Cayman Islands as the second most pernicious tax-haven in the world. Already there are huge income disparities in the US. This new form of tax avoidance will perpetuate wealth differences for generations to come, creating a new wealthy aristocracy in this supposedly classless society.  In the meantime, the Middle and Working Classes are left to labour alone to pay the taxes that support the State.

For more information about this new blow to democracy read.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/14/the-great-american-tax-haven-why-the-super-rich-love-south-dakota-trust-laws

Our political system is failing us

By Uncategorized

It’s not just our politicians that are failing us, it’s the whole political system of government.

The UK’s democratic processes were forged in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This was a world in which the pace of change was slower, the welfare state had yet to be born and emperors and monarchs exercised real power in many countries of the world. The complexities of governance that our leaders face today are many times more challenging than 2 centuries ago.

In business, candidates for job vacancies without a relevant track record would have little chance of success. In the UK, ministers are often catapulted into managing government departments for which they have no practical knowledge. As a result, they often act in an amateur knee-jerk fashion responding to each crisis as it occurs. Education and the National Health Service, in particular, have suffered greatly with ministers micro-managing according to their own pet ideas. Political ability is no guarantee of any management ability.

Listen to what Rory Stewart has to say about his own ministerial experience:

Our terms are absurdly short. I held five ministerial jobs in four years. Just as I was completing my 25-year environment plan, I was made a Middle East minister. Just as I was trying to change our aid policy in Syria, I was made the Africa minister. Just as I was finishing my Africa strategy, I was moved to prisons. I promised to reduce violence in prisons in 12 months, and violence was just beginning to come down – when I was made secretary of state for international development. How can this be a serious way to run a country?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/06/rory-stewart-hope-i-got-out-of-tories-before-it-was-too-late

Surely leaders of state institutions need to be selected on their proven ability in office? We need leaders of our education systems, transport infrastructure, tax collection systems, health care and all our other major offices of state  who can build on expertise to construct world-class cost-effective institutions. This can’t be achieved by part-time appointees with little relevant experience.

Greta Thunberg’s speech to the UN

By Uncategorized

Greta at the UNGreta Thunberg’s speech to the UN summarised perfectly our moral duty to preserve the planet for future generations.

This is all wrong. I shouldn’t be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you?

You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words, and yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering, people are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth. How dare you?

For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal clear. How dare you continue to look away and come here saying that you’re doing enough when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight? You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency, but no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil and that I refuse to believe.

The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in ten years only gives us a 50 percent chance of staying below 1.5 degrees and the risk of setting up irreversible chain reactions beyond human control. Fifty percent may be acceptable to you, but those numbers do not include tipping points most feedback loops, additional warming hidden by toxic air pollution, or the aspects of equity and climate justice.

They also rely on my generation sucking hundreds of billions of tons of your CO2 out of the air with technologies that barely exist. So a 50 percent risk is simply not acceptable to us. We who have to live with the consequences. To have a 67 percent chance of staying below the 1.5 degree of temperature rise, the best odds given by the IPCC, the world had 420 gigatons of CO2 left to emit back on January 1, 2018.

Today that figure is already down to less than 350 gigatons. How dare you pretend that this can be solved with just business as usual and some technical solutions? With today’s emissions levels, that remaining CO2 that entire budget will be gone is less than 8 and a half years. There will not be any solutions or plans presented in line with these figures here today because these numbers are too uncomfortable and you are still not mature enough to tell it like it is.

You are failing us, but young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say we will never forgive you. We will not let you get away with this, right here, right now, is where we draw the line. The world is waking up, and change is coming whether you like it or not.

Climate Nihilists

By Climate Change

Now that the effects of global warming are becoming apparent to all but the most diehard climate change deniers, we have to come up with a word that describes people who refuse to countenance any change to their lifestyle knowing full well the consequences of their actions. Gaby Hinsliff writing in the Guardian suggests the term climate nihilists.

[Climate] nihilists don’t necessarily deny the planet is frying but, essentially, they refuse to feel bad about it; they want their sunshine holidays and their 4×4’s, come hell or (possibly quite literally) high water, and screw anyone who gets in the way.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/17/greta-thunberg-brexit-culture-war-nigel-farage

Most people see the moral imperative of preserving the planet for their children, but they naturally demur when asked to make major changes to  their lifestyle by, e.g.  stopping eating meat or foregoing a foreign holiday. However, their actions tug a little at their conscience, and perhaps with more inspired leadership they could be persuaded to change course. However, there is a group of libertarians, who proudly reject any idea of curbing their behaviour for the good of others. They are devoid of common humanity and dangerous to the rest of society. We need to label them as climate nihilists and expose their moral corruption.

Local Government is in crisis

By political thought

Local democracy is in crisisLocal democracy is in deep crisis. Starved of funds by central government, but still with the same legal responsibilities, it is struggling to cope with the many problems laid at its door.  Disconnected with its electorate (only a third of people vote in local elections), it is failing to provide adequate leadership. Council services are failing across the country. How have we got in this mess?

The BBC asked people why they don’t vote: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47666080. The responses they received should not be a surprise:

  • Many of the people we speak to feel there is a disconnect between politics and their everyday lives. Everyone has issues they care about, from local planning and leisure facilities to bin collections and schools, but it can be difficult to identify how local councils operate and affect these issues.
  • There is also little national attention paid to the role councils and councillors play in communities. While national politics continues to dominate headlines, it can appear that change can only happen via Westminster – and those making decisions at a local level are neglected of the due attention, and scrutiny, they deserve.
  • When you have one party dominating in an area it can be hugely off-putting, with many people feeling like their votes don’t count and it’s not worth turning out.

We desperately need to re-establish effective local government. The whole political process needs a complete rethink. Reform should be based on three criteria:

  1. Clear accountability- responsibility for many services is divided between central and local government. Local government should have clear areas of responsibility and the powers to raise money to manage them.
  2. A clear distinction between governance and representation- the leaders of those in government should be directly elected with powers to act. In an extension of the local mayor system, local responsibility of individuals should be emphasised. Those who represent should have the power to hold officials to account. The role of national political parties should be minimised.
  3. A need to engender a local community spirit and pride- local government services should be integrated with those of the charity and voluntary sectors to tackle local issues in an innovative, inclusive and cost-effective fashion.

Only when we reconfigure our local political system will we get the active and positive community governance that we need.

Optimism

By political thought

Optimism - the signpost to disasterBoris Johnson’s recipe for the future of the UK is clearly based on energy and optimism. The belief that if you think something will happen, put aside negative thoughts and stride forward with enthusiasm, you will succeed. However, if the direction is wrong and there is not sufficient analysis and forethought, it is also a recipe for disaster. A splendid piece by Tim Lott in the Guardian warns of the dangers ahead.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/24/boris-johnson-optimism-sales-pitch-only-disappoint.

He says that too often:

optimism leads to disappointment- attended by its henchmen, bitterness and resentment … If optimism does not produce the desired results, then optimism itself has been sabotaged – not by realists but by the pessimists, otherwise known as traitors.

Optimism and an appeal to national fervour are the building blocks of populism. The belief that if our nation/race/religion all band together we will overcome all obstacles and triumph over others. It is attractive to many because it appeals to deeply held tribal instincts.

However, if we are to seriously address the critical issues of our society such as climate change, an aging population, the gig economy and increasing wealth disparity, optimism alone will not succeed.  It will inevitably lead to further divisions within society, less and less rational action and diminishing international cooperation. We need a more thoughtful approach based on shared human values. Optimism and its cohort populism are dangerous.  They represent the antithesis of the principles of eco-humanity and will inevitably result in a poorer, more divided world that continues to destroy the planet.

Environmental Limits

By environmental transformation

environmental limitsAccording to evolutionary theory, every animal species increases in population until it reaches its environmental limit. It appears that the human species will reach its limit in the twenty first century. The negative effects of climate change and pollution on human activity are well known. The UN commissioned report on biodiversity, published this week, reminds us of the dangers due to the loss of wild nature. We humans are destroying the eco-systems that support us, both in the oceans and rivers, and in the forests and savannahs.  Despite the extra intelligence and ability of our human species, we are proving to be just another dumb animal pursuing our own self-interest irrespective of the long-term results.

There is only one way to escape evolution’s driving force and that is to co-ordinate action globally. If people around the world make the right changes to their lifestyle, we can escape the downsides of growth.  The scientists know what needs to be done. However, there is little sign of the public at large recognising the critical nature of the problem or placing much urgency on resolving the issues.  Indeed, joint action is becoming more difficult, for as resources diminish, competition to control them increases. Populism is on the rise.  Instead of co-operating with each other we are reverting to tribal instincts. Rational decisions for the common good are being undermined by nationalist self-interest.

Somehow, we need to put the importance of our children’s future ahead of short-term selfish actions. We need to adopt a new way of life that puts sustainability at the centre of its moral purpose.  Maybe Greta Thunburg has shown the way forward. Perhaps the cries of our children will prick our moral conscious and stop this generation from destroying the planet.

Conservation Agriculture

By environmental transformation

Good news! There is a way of preserving the soil and maintaining food supply;  it’s called conservation agriculture and it’s a growing movement that was developed by farmers themselves.  

 

 

 

Source https://wocatpedia.net/wiki/Conservation_agriculture

The most widely used method of crop production, using ploughing, pesticides and fertilisers, is unsustainable. It is depleting soil levels and destroying eco-systems.  According to the UN, if current rates of degradation continue, the world’s topsoil will disappear within 60 years.  Michael Gove, the UK’s Environmental Secretary has warned that the country is 30 to 40 years away from a ‘fundamental eradication of soil fertility’.

It sounds like another warning of an imminent man-made catastrophe that is being ignored. Just as with climate change, humans seem incapable of prioritising long-term benefit over short-term profits.  There is, however, hope. By abandoning the plough, keeping the ground covered with crops and growing a wide variety of plants, it is possible to preserve the soil. Moreover, costs decrease by reducing the use of chemicals, and improved soil fertility often increases yields. Conservation agriculture requires more active land management but has the additional benefit of improving resilience to floods and droughts. It also conserves nature; the numbers of insects, birds and other wildlife improve dramatically.

This new method of food production is having a worldwide impact; so far, an area five times the size of the UK is being sustainably managed. For once the US is in the lead. The system was developed to avoid a repeat of the notorious dust bowl conditions in the 1930s.

As with all environmental issues, there is a solution for sustainable food production. However, if we are to feed future generations, we need more urgency and effective leadership to make it happen before disaster occurs.

Intensive farming

By environmental transformation

Three new reports catalogue how intensive farming methods are destroying the natural world and threatening our future .

In the journal of Biological Conservation, Francisco Sanchez-Bayo reports a ‘catastrophic decline’ in insect species.

A UN report on the state of food biodiversity reports a growing reliance on a small number of crop species to supply our food; just 9 species account for 66% of crop production.

A report by the Institute of Public Policy Research identifies that topsoil is being lost 10 to 40 times faster than it is being replaced. Since the 1950’s, 30% of the world’s arable land has become unproductive due to erosion.

It all makes grim reading. However, there are small sprigs of hope.

The Union of concerned scientists https://www.ucsusa.org/food-agriculture/advance-sustainable-agriculture/what-is-sustainable-agriculture claim that ‘there’s a transformation taking place on farms across the United States.’

For decades, we’ve produced the bulk of our food through industrial agriculture—a system dominated by large farms growing the same crops year after year, using enormous amounts of chemical pesticides and fertilizers that damage soils, water, air, and climate. This system is not built to last, because it squanders and degrades the resources that it depends on. 

But a growing number of innovative farmers and scientists are taking a different path, moving toward a farming system that is more sustainable—environmentally, economically, and socially. This system has room for farms of all sizes, producing a diverse range of foods, fibers, and fuels adapted to local conditions and regional markets. It uses state-of-the-art, science-based practices that maximize productivity and profit while minimizing environmental damage.

Some proponents of intensive farming claim that its impacts are the price we must pay to “feed the world.” In fact, a growing body of scientific evidence has debunked this claim, showing that a more sustainable model can be just as profitable—and can meet our needs for the long haul.

The issue of immigration

By political thought

The issue of immigration brings into focus the developing confrontation between liberal humanist values and nationalist instincts.  Increasing levels of immigrants from different cultures have fuelled the rise in populism across the world. As a result, the international cooperation necessary to save the planet is becoming even more difficult to achieve.

The Turk Umut Ozkurmh has been pondering the rise of the far right in Sweden, where he lives. This paragraph from  his article in the Guardian is worth quoting:

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/23/cosmopolitan-sweden-far-right-refuge-europe

I had to understand that the central question is, as the Swedish historian Lars Trägårdh puts it, whether it is possible to resolve the fundamental tension between, on the one side, “universal moral rules founded in notions of human rights”, and on the other, “nationally bounded claims derived from the idea of citizenship in particular nation states”.

My answer is yes, and the formula is simple: emphasise the connection between rights and duties; speed up the process of integration of newcomers (refugees or migrants) without demanding that they fully assimilate into the dominant culture, but asking them to respect the existing social contract; foster a sense of common destiny that does not necessarily require myths of common ancestry; and engage with the demand for recognition in a fair and equal way, without privileging either minorities or majorities.

Governments of the world should listen to his views  and act accordingly to avert future strife.