Climate Change and Socioeconomic Development Relationship

Climate Change and Socioeconomic Development Relationship Climate change has been discussed since over 200 years ago but has only gained relevance and been taken seriously in the 1950s (Harding, 2007). As states come to realize the possible disastrous consequences of global climate change and attempt to tackle it by implementing certain policies, they are invariably confronted with a dilemma. To prioritise climate change, states would have to reduce their focus on socio-economic development, at least in the short run. Many are hesitant to do so for fear that intra-generational inequalities would be exacerbated (Heil Selden, 2001). However, we believe that climate change should in fact be prioritised over socio-economic development as climate mitigation enables both intra and inter-generational inequalities to be addressed concurrently. Conversely, we might not achieve the same if we were to prioritise socio-economic development over climate change. It has been argued that the only way to reduce income disparity is to promote further economic growth. Unfortunately, this single-minded focus on improving a country’s global economic standing has resulted in large disparities between the rich and poor, be it within or between nations. This is because rich countries can afford to invest in machinery and labour to increase output and seize market shares while poorer countries lose out in such comparative advantage. However by taking charge of climate change, this inequality can be alleviated. To start off, organic agriculture could be adopted as a climate mitigation strategy. The various farming systems used in organic agriculture can diversify income sources and reduce the susceptibilities of agriculture to impacts of diseases and climate change such as higher frequencies of droughts or flooding. Additionally, it is able to improve soil water absorption and retention capacity which reduces soil erosion. Consequently, less CO2 and N2O would be emitted from less soil erosion and the non-usage of harmful farming system inputs fertilisers and pesticides (Muller, 2009). This effort can be further supported by implementation of free-trade movements (Carter, 2007), which enables consumers to buy products directly from the producers in less developed countries. This eliminates cash flow to middlemen and allows smaller farms from less developed countries to earn higher incomes. Not only are we mitigating climate change by encouraging more environmentally friendly methods of farming, we are actually also allowing producers, who would otherwise be disadvantaged due to their inability to gain comparative advantage, sustain their business. Hence, tackling climate change would allow to address both climate change and socio-economic inequalities concurrently which we would not be able to achieve should we only focus on socio-economic development. Moreover, pursuing socio-economic development would become counterproductive if the consequences of climate change, which will hinder socio-economic development, are disregarded. One increasingly pronounced consequence is ocean acidification the uptake of carbon dioxide in the oceans. This phenomenon reduces shellfishes’ abilities to form their carbonated shells and subsequently lowers their survivability (Fabry et al, 2008; Holman et al, 2004). These adverse effects are subsequently translated to economic losses in our marine fisheries which rely heavily on the harvests of these commercially valuable marine organisms (Gazeau et al, 2007). In addition, these effects combined with global warming are damaging and bleaching the reef-building corals which are homes to remarkable numbers of marine animals (Phinney et al, 2006, Lumsden et al, 2007). With their disappearance, the productivities of fisheries are further reduced. For cities like New Bedford which depends greatly on fisheries revenues, the revenue losses would adversely alter its main economic activities and demographics, and worsen income disparities (Cooley and Doney, 2009) Coral reefs also provide coastal protection (Moberg and Folke, 1999) which buffer some of the highest global population densities and poorer populations located at the coastal regions from becoming environmental refugees of natural calamities (Shi and Singh, 2003). Moreover, severity and frequency of natural disasters such as droughts and floods have increased due to changing weather patterns, leaving Small island Developing states (SIDS) and least developed countries (LDCs) extremely susceptible to significant economic losses in productivity and expenditures in recovery (Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States, 2009). Furthermore, changes in rainfall patterns and temperature rise may also alter current land use for food crops, resulting in novel plant pathogen or pest problems. This could potentially reduce global food supplies (Cannon, 1998; Coakley et al., 1999; Parker Gilbert, 2004) and worsen famines in developing countries. The temperature rise also encourages the spread of malaria and other diseases resulting in dire health problems. Hence, the consequences of climate change would hinder nations from achieving socio-economic development if one does not approach socio-economic development with climate change in mind. By prioritising socio-economic development in the name of alleviating intra-generational inequalities, we are then ignoring another form of equally important inequality and it is none other than inter-generational inequalities. As moral and rational human beings, we have the capacity to plan ahead and empathise with others. Therefore, since we are able to foresee the possible future of our descendants and empathise with their plight, we should definitely act on climate change rather than simply consider fulfilling our own current wants and depriving them of their future needs. There is sufficient and strong evidence that the globe is facing severe depletion in energy-producing resources (Hartmann, 2004). Furthermore, our indiscriminate use of Earth’s resources is contributing to climate change at an alarming rate (Halsnaes, 1996). Humans residing in Europe and Asia began burning coal for consumption after they unearthed it approximately 900 years ago. This marked the start of humans’ use of ancient sunlight, which is stored energy during ancient times, or around 400 million years ago. Later, humans also unearthed oil and it exponentially increased our ability to sustain life and consume as compared to before, where we could only survive on current sunlight, that is, energy stored in plants (Hartmann, 2004). These discoveries are particularly significant for the human race as it is through the use of ancient sunlight to sustain life that we are able to alter the environment for our other uses. Since then, we have been able to produce more clothes and food. This is because a lot of land that should have been used to trap current sunlight has now been converted for other purposes such as mass growing of cotton and food crops. All of this would not have been possible if humans had not discovered ancient sunlight that they could tap on (Hartmann, 2004). Humans’ ability to sustain life grew dramatically and so did the human population in terms of its sheer number. According to Hartmann, â€Å"In less than a tenth of a percent of the total history of humanity, we have experienced over 90 percent of the total growth of the human population† (2004). However, these finite resources would one day be depleted. Sources unanimously agree that the oil supply is draining at an extreme rate. In 1996, oil industry experts predicted that we have only an â€Å"almost† 45-year-supply of oil left. Other experts in the industry are way less optimistic. Furthermore, due to accelerated population growth in the Asia’s developing countries, global energy demand is expected to double by 2020 (Hartmann, 2004). Should we lose this important source of energy, we risk having seven billion starve in the 2050 (Hartmann, 2004). This highlights how dire the situation is and how imperative it is for us to address the problem. If we were to simply prioritise socio-economic development, there is almost no incentive for us to reduce our use of these resources. On the contrary, we might end up devising methods to better tap on them to increase economic growth. However, should we decide to place climate change at the fore, we would inevitably have to reduce our oil and coal consumption since using them would only contribute to climate change (Le Quà ©rà © et al., 2012). In other words, we would be addressing two problems just by giving one attention. While it is true that intra-generational inequalities are severe at the moment, inter-generational inequalities would be as well if we fail to address the issue of depleting resources and climate change. It definitely would not be fair for us to leave a globe that our future generations would not be able to enjoy living in with all the devastating climatic conditions and lack of resources. Therefore, climate change should be prioritised over socio-economic development before it is too late for us to. Socio-economic development is undeniably an important goal for all nations. However, if we ignore climate change and continue to use our resources in an unsustainable manner, the potential destruction of the environment and depleted resources would prevent us from moving forward in achieving socio-economic development for the present and the future. It is hence essential that nations collaborate and commit themselves in mitigating climate change. As mentioned by Pew Center (2002), â€Å"Climate mitigation is not the goal, but rather an outgrowth of efforts driven by economic, security, or local environmental concerns.†

Pony Express :: essays research papers

Pony Express   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Before 1860 it was virtually impossible to get a letter or other form of correspondence from St. Joseph Missouri to Sacramento California in less than 20 days. 20 days seemed entirely too long for the west coast merchants and bankers to wait for documents from the east. So three men, William Russell, Alexander Majors and William Waddell created the Pony Express. The Pony Express ensured fast and safe delivery of the mail.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  To ensure the fast pace delivery of the mail, the Pony Express purchased 600 broncos, mostly thorough breads, mustangs, and morgans. Still the horses weren’t all needed. They also had to find men who would be able to handle the adverse weather conditions, Indians and be able to ride for 75 miles with out stopping. The riders were generally under 20 years of age and weighed no more than 120 pounds. They had to be excellent horsemen and have experience with guns. The Pony Express was a relay of mail running day and night.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  On April 3rd, 1860, the first rider Johnny Fug headed west bound for Sacramento. Every rider road for 75 miles and they would switch horses every 10-15 miles. The very first letter traveled the 2,000-mile journey from St Joseph Missouri to Sacramento California in only 10 days to the hour of departure. This journey used 27 men and 133 horses. The Pony Express cut the normal 20 days of travel into 10 days, nearly cutting it in half.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  With the amazing delivery of mail in 10 days across 2,000-miles of prairie land, mountains and deserts led many people to use them. With the growth communication between the east and the west the Pony Express grew in popularity. The Pony Express proved that the central route through the U.S could be traveled all winter. It supported the cattle route for the Transcontinental Railroad to meet with the Union Pacific Railroad. Communications was kept open with California during the Civil War. The Pony Express was the fastest communication between the east and west until the telegraph. It captured the hearts and imagination of people all over the world.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  With all its success the Pony Express like all things suffered failures. Such as the owners spent $17,000, on the Pony Express and has a 2,000 deficit.

Rondell Data Corporation

The Rondell Data Corporation was founded in 1920 to manufacture the electrical testing devices invented by Bob Rondell. Over the years, Rondell built its reputation as a source of â€Å"high-quality, innovative designs†. Delays in releasing the new Model 802 wide-band modulator has begun to put that reputation at stake and caused increased pressure among production and engineering staff. (Daft, pg 531-538) Rondell operates with the functional structure (Daft, pg 107), that doesn’t appear to function effeciently. The Director of Engineering has seen high turnover having had a new leader each of the past three years.It appears that this position is been designated as the company â€Å"scapegoat† (McGinnis, 2009) and therefore being blamed for all the problems that Rondell is facing with releasing the 802 modulator. Rondell has failed in adapting to the changing environments (Daft, pg 149) that can keep the company moving in a forward direction. There is an appearan ce that the company’s departments still operate in their specific silo’s (BusinessDictionary). According to the Production Supervisor, Dave Schwab, â€Å"to be efficient, production has to be self-contained† and â€Å"other departments should be self-contained as well†. Daft, pg 537) As such, they do not share needed information across departments or assist in problem solving by offering solutions based on their department observations.A prime example lies in the opening portion of the case study in which Frank, the Director of Engineering services, received a message back that the model released for production â€Å"can’t be produced either†¦Ã¢â‚¬  . (Daft, pg 531). While the reader is not given the full content of the message, I was left with the assumption that it did not go much past what is shown. Ideally, the note would have contained information that said â€Å"this can’t be produced because†¦. however, if we try to†¦. †. Not only would the message relay the problem as to why the design couldn’t be produced, it might provide a direction for engineering to pursue. â€Å"People at the grassroots level are often able to see and interpret changes or problems sooner than managers†. (Daft, pg 151) Rondell continues to be mired in it’s past successes. The culture leaves it difficult for them to change based on the established view points of their leaders – the old timers. (Daft, pg 188). Doc wants to move at his own pace and to do â€Å"his own thing† (Daft, pg 532).He doesn’t feel the same pressure as his boss and doesn’t have a sense of accountability to the company. Frank Forbus was just the latest in the line of scapegoats to go through Rondell. Jim Kilman most likely would have been successful but the sense is Rondell is extremely reluctant to change. Rondell should research other organizational structures such as a horizontal structure (Daft , pg 125) which would promote team work and collaboration throughout the organization to stop the engineering revolving door and restore the company’s reputation.References BusinessDictionary. (n. d. ). Retrieved November 10, 2012, from BusinessDictionary. com: http://www. businessdictionary. com/definition/silo-mentality. html Daft, R. L. (2008). Organization Theory and Design (Vol. 10). South-Western Cengage Learning. McGinnis, A. (2009, November 24). The Scapegoat Theory; Are You or Someone You Know a Scapegoat. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from Yahoo Voices: http://voices. yahoo. com/the-scapegoat-theory-someone-know-a-4951510. html? cat=5

Discrimination Against Women and the History of CEDAW

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) is the key international agreement on womens human rights. The Convention was adopted by the United Nations in 1979. What Is CEDAW? CEDAW is an effort to eliminate discrimination against women by holding countries responsible for discrimination that takes place in their territory. A convention differs slightly from a treaty, but is also a written agreement among international entities. CEDAW can be thought of as an international bill of rights for women. The Convention acknowledges that persistent discrimination against women exists and urges member states to take action. Provisions of CEDAW include: States Parties, or signers, of the Convention shall take all appropriate measures to modify or abolish existing laws and practices that discriminate against women.States Parties shall suppress trafficking of women, exploitation, and prostitution.Women shall be able to vote in all elections on equal terms with men.Equal access to education, including in rural areas.Equal access to health care, financial transactions, and property rights. History of Womens Rights in the UN The U.N.s Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) had previously worked on the political rights of women and the minimum marriage age. Although the U.N. charter adopted in 1945 addresses human rights for all people, there was an argument that the various U.N. agreements about sex and gender equality were a piecemeal approach that failed to address discrimination against women overall. Growing Womens Rights Awareness During the 1960s, there was increased awareness around the world about the many ways women were subjected to discrimination. In 1963, the U.N. asked the CSW to prepare a declaration that would gather in one document all of the international standards regarding equal rights between men and women. The CSW produced a Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, adopted in 1967, but this Declaration was only a statement of political intent rather than a binding treaty. Five years later, in 1972, the General Assembly asked the CSW to consider working on a binding treaty. This led to a 1970s working group and eventually the 1979 Convention. Adoption of CEDAW The process of international rule-making can be slow. CEDAW was adopted by the General Assembly on December 18, 1979. It took legal effect in 1981, once it had been ratified by twenty member states (nation states, or countries). This Convention actually entered into force faster than any previous convention in U.N. history. The Convention has since been ratified by more than 180 countries. The only industrialized Western nation that has not ratified is the United States, which has led observers to question the U.S. commitment to international human rights. How CEDAW Has Helped Womens Rights In theory, once States Parties ratify CEDAW, they enact legislation and other measures to protect womens rights. Naturally, this is not foolproof, but the Convention is a binding legal agreement that helps with accountability. The United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) cites many CEDAW success stories, including: Austria implemented CEDAW committee recommendations about protecting women from spousal violence.The High Court of Bangladesh prohibited sexual harassment, drawing on CEDAWs employment equality statements.In Colombia, a court overturning a total ban on abortion cited CEDAW and acknowledged reproductive rights as human rights.Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have revised land ownership processes to ensure equal rights and meet the standards in the Convention.