This is indeed true. Ever since the industrial revolution which occurred and affected countries all over the world, humans almost could not care less about the environment. Humans abused the environment and took advantage of it as they pleased and now there is a sudden diversion of attention to the environmental problems we are facing.
This raise in awareness of the damage done to our environment, namely Mother Earth, is being brought up worldwide in many countries. This is especially significant in countries who can afford to take action to salvage Mother Earth. Technology and resources in these countries put them in a very beneficial role because they can easily do their part to help the environment with what they have. However, how the technology and resources are being used in countries is solely the decision of the country. Every country has to play their part as a member, as a citizen of the Earth. Some countries that do not have the resources or the same advancement in technology which we have are probably those which do not produce as much harmful gases as we do. Technology can be used for both good and evil. All along, technology had more or less been used to damage the Earth rather than to save it.
This is a global problem which every country worldwide will face in the near future. Countries have to help each other out to do something about this problem and take action. Our global problems can affect us very badly and there are many areas which we need to work on. Still, we should strive for the betterment of the environment which is constantly being tortured, destroyed and harmed by humans. A global effort is needed, something like the Kyoto Protocol, it just has to be more successful and with the cooperation of major countries in the world like the USA.
Health and Environmental Expert: Lee Chi Hang Angel
Sunday, May 6, 2007
ARTICLE: Aren't We Contributing to the Global Environmental Problems?
Aren't We Contributing to the Global Environmental Problems?
In this country of ours, everyone knows that there has been a transition from a focus on individual problems to a broad emphasis on preserving the global environment. That is because, from comparatively localized problems of pollution, environmental problems which must be dealt with on an "earth-wide" scale have arisen as a more important issue.
The "global environment problem" includes: depletion of the ozone layer, global warming, acid rain, deforestation (destruction of tropical rainforests), land becoming desert-like, ocean pollution, pollution in developing countries, transportation of hazardous waste across borders, extinction of wildlife species, etc. The "global environment problem" is characterized by a larger scale in terms of both space and time-regarding the latter, its effect may extend across generations-and by the increasing complexity of cause and effect. Thus, its character is quite different from local environmental problems such as pollution.
Along with researching the global environment problem and proceeding with study of countermeasures, the relationship with the activities of companies has become more and more clear. Due to the nature of the global environment problem, the faster countermeasures can be implemented, the more effective they will be. In Japan, due to efforts on the government side, recently, a variety of countermeasures have become law in quick succession.
One major example is work to halt depletion of the ozone layer by stopping the manufacture and use of certain freons and undertaking measures to recover freon from existing products. Likewise, to arrest global warming, emission restraints on carbon dioxide, methane, sulfurhexafluoride, etc. are necessary.
In this country of ours, everyone knows that there has been a transition from a focus on individual problems to a broad emphasis on preserving the global environment. That is because, from comparatively localized problems of pollution, environmental problems which must be dealt with on an "earth-wide" scale have arisen as a more important issue.
The "global environment problem" includes: depletion of the ozone layer, global warming, acid rain, deforestation (destruction of tropical rainforests), land becoming desert-like, ocean pollution, pollution in developing countries, transportation of hazardous waste across borders, extinction of wildlife species, etc. The "global environment problem" is characterized by a larger scale in terms of both space and time-regarding the latter, its effect may extend across generations-and by the increasing complexity of cause and effect. Thus, its character is quite different from local environmental problems such as pollution.
Along with researching the global environment problem and proceeding with study of countermeasures, the relationship with the activities of companies has become more and more clear. Due to the nature of the global environment problem, the faster countermeasures can be implemented, the more effective they will be. In Japan, due to efforts on the government side, recently, a variety of countermeasures have become law in quick succession.
One major example is work to halt depletion of the ozone layer by stopping the manufacture and use of certain freons and undertaking measures to recover freon from existing products. Likewise, to arrest global warming, emission restraints on carbon dioxide, methane, sulfurhexafluoride, etc. are necessary.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
RESPONSE TO ARTICLE: Drug 'mends' muscular dystrophy
This drug can really cause a change to the lives of people all around the world, especially those with genetic disorders. However, this drug has not been proven to be a cure in humans. Even though people with DMD are much lesser in number than those infected with HIV and TB, there is currently no cure for DMD. If this drug works as a cure, people with DMD would be able to live normal lives again without having to suffer from the treatment of this genetic disorder and living with its symptoms. Even though this drug might not be able to cure all people with DMD, it is certainly a start and there will definitely be more cures to come in the future.
This, again, is closely related to globalisation because DMD is a genetic disorder which happens to people all around the world. In Singapore, the Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDAS) helps those with DMD. Many other cases of muscular dystrophy also occur all around the world, causing people to be unable to live their normal lives, having to live painfully with this genetic disorder all their lives. If this drug can be used as a cure, it creates hope for many people to live a normal life all over the world.
This might be a start to finding cure for other currently incurable diseases. However, every country has to play their part in contributing whatever they can, whether in terms of resources, manpower or equipment. This way, cures can be made accessible to people all over the world, not just in the place which it has been developed but also anywhere where the disease exists. It is definitely a good progress to promote better and more easily accessible healthcare worldwide.
Health and Environmental Expert: Lee Chi Hang Angel
This, again, is closely related to globalisation because DMD is a genetic disorder which happens to people all around the world. In Singapore, the Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDAS) helps those with DMD. Many other cases of muscular dystrophy also occur all around the world, causing people to be unable to live their normal lives, having to live painfully with this genetic disorder all their lives. If this drug can be used as a cure, it creates hope for many people to live a normal life all over the world.
This might be a start to finding cure for other currently incurable diseases. However, every country has to play their part in contributing whatever they can, whether in terms of resources, manpower or equipment. This way, cures can be made accessible to people all over the world, not just in the place which it has been developed but also anywhere where the disease exists. It is definitely a good progress to promote better and more easily accessible healthcare worldwide.
Health and Environmental Expert: Lee Chi Hang Angel
ARTICLE: Drug 'mends' muscular dystrophy
Drug 'mends' muscular dystrophy
An experimental drug may be able to compensate for the genetic error responsible for some cases of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, US scientists hope.
In rodents, the drug PTC124 was able to restore the muscle function normally lost in this disease, Nature reports.
Trials have already begun in humans, although the results will take years.
The drug works by allowing cells to read through certain mistakes in the genetic code for a protein - dystrophin - missing in 15% of patients with DMD.
Muscular dystrophy is a group of genetic disorders that cause the muscles in the body to gradually weaken over time and mobility to be lost. It shortens life span and there is currently no cure.
DMD is the commonest and most severe form. Around 100 boys are born with the condition in the UK each year.
There are treatments that can help alleviate symptoms, such as muscle spasm, and enable people with MD to lead a good quality of life.
But scientists are striving to find a way of reversing or preventing the muscle damage.
PTC124 binds to a cell component called the ribosome, whose job it is to read genetic code and translate it so proteins can be made.
In mice, the drug helped override the mutation in the dystrophin gene that tells it to halt production of the protein. Instead of stopping, the full-length dystrophin protein was made.
It did not prevent the ribosome from reading correct "stop" signals in genetic codes for other proteins.
Encouraging findings
Lead researcher Dr H Lee Sweeney is on the scientific advisory board for PTC Therapeutics Inc, which is testing the drug.
Dr Sweeney said: "This new class of treatment has the potential to help a large number of patients with different genetic diseases that have the same type of mutation."
Dr Marita Pohlschmidt, director of research at the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, said the results were "very encouraging", particularly in the light of the ongoing human trials.
She said: "This drug appears to have the potential to become a treatment in the longer term for some people with DMD.
"We look forward to the publication of the full results of these clinical trials so that we can see more clearly what the prospects and possible timescales are for treatment."
Source of article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6573267.stm
An experimental drug may be able to compensate for the genetic error responsible for some cases of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, US scientists hope.
In rodents, the drug PTC124 was able to restore the muscle function normally lost in this disease, Nature reports.
Trials have already begun in humans, although the results will take years.
The drug works by allowing cells to read through certain mistakes in the genetic code for a protein - dystrophin - missing in 15% of patients with DMD.
Muscular dystrophy is a group of genetic disorders that cause the muscles in the body to gradually weaken over time and mobility to be lost. It shortens life span and there is currently no cure.
DMD is the commonest and most severe form. Around 100 boys are born with the condition in the UK each year.
There are treatments that can help alleviate symptoms, such as muscle spasm, and enable people with MD to lead a good quality of life.
But scientists are striving to find a way of reversing or preventing the muscle damage.
PTC124 binds to a cell component called the ribosome, whose job it is to read genetic code and translate it so proteins can be made.
In mice, the drug helped override the mutation in the dystrophin gene that tells it to halt production of the protein. Instead of stopping, the full-length dystrophin protein was made.
It did not prevent the ribosome from reading correct "stop" signals in genetic codes for other proteins.
Encouraging findings
Lead researcher Dr H Lee Sweeney is on the scientific advisory board for PTC Therapeutics Inc, which is testing the drug.
Dr Sweeney said: "This new class of treatment has the potential to help a large number of patients with different genetic diseases that have the same type of mutation."
Dr Marita Pohlschmidt, director of research at the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, said the results were "very encouraging", particularly in the light of the ongoing human trials.
She said: "This drug appears to have the potential to become a treatment in the longer term for some people with DMD.
"We look forward to the publication of the full results of these clinical trials so that we can see more clearly what the prospects and possible timescales are for treatment."
Source of article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6573267.stm
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
RESPONSE TO ARTICLE: The False Promise of Financial Liberalization
By definition, globalization is the freeing of flow of trade and investments across the countries in the world and the gradual integration of the international economy. Many economic experts suppose globalization can raise productivity throughout the globe and increase the living standards of people through the expansion of economic freedom as this would create competition. In addition, globalization promises the access to foreign capital and advanced technology which would result in an accelerated economic growth, potentially reducing poverty, as well as increasing the standards of living in less developed countries. Globalization also promises individuals greater freedom, allowing them to have more liberty to speak in today's society.
However, most of the promises that globalization ought to have fulfilled are not seen in action today. It is tough to find countries which have experienced economic growth as a result of the freeing of capital flows. Furthermore, many emerging markets have experienced a decrease in investment rates. China, for an example, probably a notable role model by now for most emerging economies, has experienced a phenomenal rapid economic growth. It has consistently avoided huge surges of capital inflows and is thus able to maintain high domestic currencies, which explains why it has a huge surplus of finances as its profitability and investments are kept high. Even in countries such as Argentina and Brazil, there has been a comfortable amount of surplus in recent records.
Undoubted are the dangers of globalization. The integration of world economies could result in a country’s economy being more vulnerable to the impact on other economies. The financial crisis in Southeast Asia in 1997 is a good example. Beginning in the debt-ridden economy of Thailand, the financial crisis spread to economies of South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Hong Kong and the Philippines. Eventually, the financial crisis rocked the global economy. This projects how the globalized economy could be so volatile.
Despite that, there are evidential materials that point towards how globalization has aided the world. Through the developments that come with globalization, the percentage of people in developing countries throughout the globe who live below US $1 per day has halved in just twenty years, and there are also massive improvements in these developing economies and also the reduction of barriers to trade and investments, which could in turn lead to further economic improvements through foreign investments.
Also, the life expectancy has doubled in the developing world and infant mortality has decreased in every developing region in the world. Globalization has also brought about a dramatic increase in democracy, from almost no nation with universal suffrage in the 1900s to 62.5% of all nations in year 2000.
Overall, it is inappropriate to baselessly condemn the idea and concepts of globalization because there are many areas in which globalization has brought about useful developments. China still had to depend on the world to a certain extent of foreign investments, and without the tools of globalization-such as the internet, the use of ships, air-craft or even cars, China would not even be close to her current position on the global stage today.
PANG YI XIAN.
By definition, globalization is the freeing of flow of trade and investments across the countries in the world and the gradual integration of the international economy. Many economic experts suppose globalization can raise productivity throughout the globe and increase the living standards of people through the expansion of economic freedom as this would create competition. In addition, globalization promises the access to foreign capital and advanced technology which would result in an accelerated economic growth, potentially reducing poverty, as well as increasing the standards of living in less developed countries. Globalization also promises individuals greater freedom, allowing them to have more liberty to speak in today's society.
However, most of the promises that globalization ought to have fulfilled are not seen in action today. It is tough to find countries which have experienced economic growth as a result of the freeing of capital flows. Furthermore, many emerging markets have experienced a decrease in investment rates. China, for an example, probably a notable role model by now for most emerging economies, has experienced a phenomenal rapid economic growth. It has consistently avoided huge surges of capital inflows and is thus able to maintain high domestic currencies, which explains why it has a huge surplus of finances as its profitability and investments are kept high. Even in countries such as Argentina and Brazil, there has been a comfortable amount of surplus in recent records.
Undoubted are the dangers of globalization. The integration of world economies could result in a country’s economy being more vulnerable to the impact on other economies. The financial crisis in Southeast Asia in 1997 is a good example. Beginning in the debt-ridden economy of Thailand, the financial crisis spread to economies of South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Hong Kong and the Philippines. Eventually, the financial crisis rocked the global economy. This projects how the globalized economy could be so volatile.
Despite that, there are evidential materials that point towards how globalization has aided the world. Through the developments that come with globalization, the percentage of people in developing countries throughout the globe who live below US $1 per day has halved in just twenty years, and there are also massive improvements in these developing economies and also the reduction of barriers to trade and investments, which could in turn lead to further economic improvements through foreign investments.
Also, the life expectancy has doubled in the developing world and infant mortality has decreased in every developing region in the world. Globalization has also brought about a dramatic increase in democracy, from almost no nation with universal suffrage in the 1900s to 62.5% of all nations in year 2000.
Overall, it is inappropriate to baselessly condemn the idea and concepts of globalization because there are many areas in which globalization has brought about useful developments. China still had to depend on the world to a certain extent of foreign investments, and without the tools of globalization-such as the internet, the use of ships, air-craft or even cars, China would not even be close to her current position on the global stage today.
PANG YI XIAN.
ARTICLE 1 BY YI XIAN : )
(This is a really long article by the way.)
The False Promise of Financial Liberalization
By Dani Rodrik *
Project Syndicate January 22, 2007
Something is amiss in the world of finance. The problem is not another financial meltdown in an emerging market, with the predictable contagion that engulfs neighboring countries. Even the most exposed countries handled the last round of financial shocks, in May and June 2006, relatively comfortably. Instead, the problem this time around is one that relatively calm times have helped reveal: the predicted benefits of financial globalization are nowhere to be seen.
Financial globalization is a recent phenomenon. One could trace its beginnings to the 1970’s, when recycled petrodollars fueled large capital inflows to developing nations. But it was only around 1990 that most emerging markets threw caution to the wind and removed controls on private portfolio and bank flows. Private capital flows have exploded since, dwarfing trade in goods and services. So the world has experienced true financial globalization only for 15 years or so.
Freeing up capital flows had an inexorable logic – or so it seemed. Developing nations, the argument went, have plenty of investment opportunities, but are short of savings. Foreign capital inflows would allow them to draw on the savings of rich countries, increase their investment rates, and stimulate growth. In addition, financial globalization would allow poor nations to smooth out the boom-and-bust cycles associated with temporary terms-of-trade shocks and other bouts of bad luck. Finally, exposure to the discipline of financial markets would make it harder for profligate governments to misbehave.
But things have not worked out according to plan. Research at the IMF, of all places, as well as by independent scholars documents a number of puzzles and paradoxes. For example, it is difficult to find evidence that countries that freed up capital flows have experienced sustained economic growth as a result. In fact, many emerging markets experienced declines in investment rates. Nor, on balance, has liberalization of capital flows stabilized consumption.
Most intriguingly, the countries that have done the best in recent years are those that relied the least on foreign financing. China, the world’s growth superstar, has a huge current-account surplus, which means that it is a net lender to the rest of the world. Among other high-growth countries, Vietnam’s current account is essentially balanced, and India has only a small deficit. Latin America, Argentina and Brazil have been running comfortable external surpluses recently. In fact, their new-found resilience to capital-market shocks is due in no small part to their becoming net lenders to the rest of the world, after years as net borrowers.
To understand what is going on, we need a different explanation of what keeps investment and growth low in most poor nations. Whereas the standard story – the one that motivated the drive to liberalize capital flows – is that developing countries are saving-constrained, the fact that capital is moving outward rather than inward in the most successful developing countries suggests that the constraint lies elsewhere. Most likely, the real constraint lies on the investment side.
The main problem seems to be the paucity of entrepreneurship and low propensity to invest in plant and equipment – what Keynes called “low animal spirits” – especially to raise output of products that can be traded on world markets. Behind this shortcoming lay various institutional and market distortions associated with industrial and other modern-sector activities in low-income environments.
When countries suffer from low investment demand, freeing up capital inflows does not do much good. What businesses in these countries need is not necessarily more finance, but the expectation of larger profits for their owners. In fact, capital inflows can make things worse, because they tend to appreciate the domestic currency and make production in export activities less profitable, further weakening the incentive to invest.
Thus, the pattern in emerging market economies that liberalized capital inflows has been lower investment in the modern sectors of the economy, and eventually slower economic growth (once the consumption boom associated with the capital inflows plays out). By contrast, countries like China and India, which avoided a surge of capital inflows, managed to maintain highly competitive domestic currencies, and thereby kept profitability and investment high.
The lesson for countries that have not yet made the leap to financial globalization is clear:
Beware. Nothing can kill growth more effectively than an uncompetitive currency, and there is no faster route to currency appreciation than a surge in capital inflows. For those countries that have already made the leap, the choices are more difficult. Managing the exchange rate becomes much more difficult when capital is free to come and go as it pleases. But it is not impossible – as long as policymakers understand the critical role played by the exchange rate and the need to subordinate capital flows to the requirements of competitiveness.
Given all the effort that the world’s “emerging markets” have devoted to shielding themselves from financial volatility, they have reason to ask: where in the world is the upside of financial liberalization? That is a question all of us should consider.
About the Author: Dani Rodrik is Professor of Political Economy, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
(This is a really long article by the way.)
The False Promise of Financial Liberalization
By Dani Rodrik *
Project Syndicate January 22, 2007
Something is amiss in the world of finance. The problem is not another financial meltdown in an emerging market, with the predictable contagion that engulfs neighboring countries. Even the most exposed countries handled the last round of financial shocks, in May and June 2006, relatively comfortably. Instead, the problem this time around is one that relatively calm times have helped reveal: the predicted benefits of financial globalization are nowhere to be seen.
Financial globalization is a recent phenomenon. One could trace its beginnings to the 1970’s, when recycled petrodollars fueled large capital inflows to developing nations. But it was only around 1990 that most emerging markets threw caution to the wind and removed controls on private portfolio and bank flows. Private capital flows have exploded since, dwarfing trade in goods and services. So the world has experienced true financial globalization only for 15 years or so.
Freeing up capital flows had an inexorable logic – or so it seemed. Developing nations, the argument went, have plenty of investment opportunities, but are short of savings. Foreign capital inflows would allow them to draw on the savings of rich countries, increase their investment rates, and stimulate growth. In addition, financial globalization would allow poor nations to smooth out the boom-and-bust cycles associated with temporary terms-of-trade shocks and other bouts of bad luck. Finally, exposure to the discipline of financial markets would make it harder for profligate governments to misbehave.
But things have not worked out according to plan. Research at the IMF, of all places, as well as by independent scholars documents a number of puzzles and paradoxes. For example, it is difficult to find evidence that countries that freed up capital flows have experienced sustained economic growth as a result. In fact, many emerging markets experienced declines in investment rates. Nor, on balance, has liberalization of capital flows stabilized consumption.
Most intriguingly, the countries that have done the best in recent years are those that relied the least on foreign financing. China, the world’s growth superstar, has a huge current-account surplus, which means that it is a net lender to the rest of the world. Among other high-growth countries, Vietnam’s current account is essentially balanced, and India has only a small deficit. Latin America, Argentina and Brazil have been running comfortable external surpluses recently. In fact, their new-found resilience to capital-market shocks is due in no small part to their becoming net lenders to the rest of the world, after years as net borrowers.
To understand what is going on, we need a different explanation of what keeps investment and growth low in most poor nations. Whereas the standard story – the one that motivated the drive to liberalize capital flows – is that developing countries are saving-constrained, the fact that capital is moving outward rather than inward in the most successful developing countries suggests that the constraint lies elsewhere. Most likely, the real constraint lies on the investment side.
The main problem seems to be the paucity of entrepreneurship and low propensity to invest in plant and equipment – what Keynes called “low animal spirits” – especially to raise output of products that can be traded on world markets. Behind this shortcoming lay various institutional and market distortions associated with industrial and other modern-sector activities in low-income environments.
When countries suffer from low investment demand, freeing up capital inflows does not do much good. What businesses in these countries need is not necessarily more finance, but the expectation of larger profits for their owners. In fact, capital inflows can make things worse, because they tend to appreciate the domestic currency and make production in export activities less profitable, further weakening the incentive to invest.
Thus, the pattern in emerging market economies that liberalized capital inflows has been lower investment in the modern sectors of the economy, and eventually slower economic growth (once the consumption boom associated with the capital inflows plays out). By contrast, countries like China and India, which avoided a surge of capital inflows, managed to maintain highly competitive domestic currencies, and thereby kept profitability and investment high.
The lesson for countries that have not yet made the leap to financial globalization is clear:
Beware. Nothing can kill growth more effectively than an uncompetitive currency, and there is no faster route to currency appreciation than a surge in capital inflows. For those countries that have already made the leap, the choices are more difficult. Managing the exchange rate becomes much more difficult when capital is free to come and go as it pleases. But it is not impossible – as long as policymakers understand the critical role played by the exchange rate and the need to subordinate capital flows to the requirements of competitiveness.
Given all the effort that the world’s “emerging markets” have devoted to shielding themselves from financial volatility, they have reason to ask: where in the world is the upside of financial liberalization? That is a question all of us should consider.
About the Author: Dani Rodrik is Professor of Political Economy, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
Globalization: In Transport
Globalization can be defined as the process by which the experience of everyday life, marked by the diffusion of commodities and ideas, is becoming standardized around the world.
A key concept in the process of globalization is to lessen the amount of time taken to travel from place to place, so as to quicken the communication and transportation process. The advent of the automobile was as crucial to the industrialization and modernization process in the 20th century as it is to globalization today.
We’ve taken automobile transport for granted, which is why we don’t appreciate its value as much as it is really worth. Should we have to forgo automobile transport for a day, we would take much more time to reach our destinations, which effectively shortens the amount of time spent on work, which in turn leads to decreased productivity rates, and the loss of billions of dollars all over the world. Some industries in particular would be heavily affected, especially those pertaining to the delivery of products.
And that, is the importance of automobile transport in globalization.
NG YU HANG.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)