The Lucretius Plan

The Mystery of Materialism

There is an interesting graph in the awesomely-named UNEP report 'Demystifying Materiality', which plots the likelihood of global risks against their severity (expressed in US Dollars, rather than lives lost or misery caused.  Perhaps dollar losses are now an acceptable proxy for misery?).  I think they are attempting to portray biodiversity and ecosystem risks as being 'material' risks that can impact a business where it hurts, and are thus not to be considered abstract externalities (and thus 'immaterial').

The graph is reproduced below (source: World Economic Forum), and a couple of things stand out:

- Since the severity and likelihood of biodiverity loss has been upgraded, the mildest risk on this graph is 'International Terrorism', which is not particularly likely (5%) and not particularly expensive (30 billion Dollars or so).  Yet I imagine of all the things on this graph, this is the one that has the most money spent on it.  Stiglitz in The Washington Post estimates that total cost of the Iraq war to the US (so costs to UK and other countries need to be added to this) as three trillion dollars.  Crudely, the cost of mitigation outweighs the severity of the threat by a factor of 100. Not very efficient.

- The risk of a slowing Chinese economy, defined as growing at less than 6%, is the most likely and apparently more expensive than coastal flooding.  Yet it is inevitable that the Chinese economy must slow down at some point. And the faster it grows, one could argue that is increases some of the other risks on this chart.

- Conversely, the most expensive risk - oil price spikes - is the one most likely to reduce many of the other risks on the chart, by increasing fossil fuel prices and driving investment in renewable energy, and thus reducing emissions.

The chart is aimed at the businesses and investors, and apparently reflects their perceptions.  However, it also reveals how difficult it is to get people to think in terms of complex inter-connected systems rather than seeing the world as a series of binary risk/reward choices.  It also shows the grip that military mythology has on our collective consciousness.  Defence is seen as something you do with troops, drones and sidewinders, as a way to preserve 'our way of life'. It rarely (if ever) has to pass a 'value for money' test.  Yet spending cash on preserving the ecosystems that support our lives is seen as peripheral, effeminate and an unacceptable economic burden.   We need less of a fetish for matériel and more concern for materiality.

Who will stand up for democracy in Asia?

The presence of Indonesian Ambassador to Norway Esti Andayani at the Bali Democracy Forum probably has nothing to do with China’s appeal to the world community not to send representatives to the ceremony to present the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to imprisoned Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo on Friday. China has prohibited Liu or anyone else from receiving the prize, which comes with 10 million Swedish kronor (US$1.4 million).

via www.thejakartapost.com

Perhaps it was asking too much to expect Indonesia to incur China's displeasure. The recent surge in 'Indonesia is the greatest' nationalism is strictly for the domestic audience, not for cultivating an international reputation. And maybe, as Purba writes in the Jakarta Post, Indonesia is not yet in the position to start taking a stand on anything much, least of all human rights. The country has come a long way since the kleptomania and thuggery of Suharto, but still has some way to go.

But Timor-Leste seems to have been silent on the issue (has Ramos-Horta said anything yet? - ETAN does not seem to think so). The Nobel prize served a good cause when it embarrassed Indonesia in 1996 when it was given to Ramos-Horta and Bishop Belo. Just because it was uncomfortable for Asians to see Indonesia 'lose face', does not diminish the purpose of inducing such shame.

The same principle should apply to China: let them feel the shame of being such a weak state that the only way they can ensure stability is to suppress peaceful dissent.

Of course it may be a bit tough asking Timor-Leste to take the lone stand against China on this. It could even be perceived as ingratitude, as China was the only constant friend of an independent Timor-Leste during the occupation, when Australia, Europe and the USA were all appeasing Suharto.

And let us not forget that China has built so many huge and glorious buildings in Dili, and has allowed so many Chinese labourers to come and work here to help re-build the city, thus relieving the local people of the cares of paid labour and the burden of disposable income. China even offered to sell the country one of its obsolete heavy fuel oil plants, which would have been invaluable for generating power with 1950's emission standards.

However, PM Xanana did make a clever coded reference to Democracy in a speech to the Bali Democracy Forum this week, by drawing attention to Burma, saying that he was pleased to "witness the progress in Myanmar, which has led to the release of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Ms Aung Sang Suu Kyi. This is a decisive step towards democracy and we all urge constructive dialogue towards peace in this country". Xanana manages here to imply that the Nobel prize is associated with a struggle for democracy, and implicitly chastises China as a key supporter of the odious Burma military regime. However, in the same speech he also says "one cannot help but be amazed by the success of China, an important development partner of ours".

Like many countries in the world, both Indonesia and Timor-Leste have complicated relationships with China. Perhaps it is unreasonable to expect them to risk everything by standing up for abstractions such as democracy and human rights. After all, we did not do a great job of it when Timor-Leste was the victim.

Our turn to plough

In the great tradition of public service for which Timor-Leste politicians are becoming renowned, our esteemed Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Mariano Sabino Assanami, has been defending his decision to hand out free tractors to members of his own political party.

Assanami was confused as to why this woud be seen as an abuse of power.  "Yes indeed I handed out tractors to them. But because they belonged to the farming community and as Timorese citizens who deserved to receive them from the government program so as to facilitate their lives as farmers", he told local press.

This defence could be sound: just because farmers were members of his PD party, this does not mean they were favoured.  Some farmers are members of his party, and some are not.  Some farmers received tractors and some did not.  It is like one of those tests of syllogism.

However, Assanami came out fighting: "The members of parliament are making these accusations because they do not understand the logic from the principles of democracy, as this happens in any developed nation, that when we win of course we have to give priority first to our people who elected us" he said. 

"If I give attention to my party members, how or why is that wrong?"

Memo to Maun Assanami:  When politicians in developed countries are caught overtly favouring their own cronies with public funds they are either prosecuted or kicked out the next election.  Or both. 

I admit that the British penchant for handing out peerages to political donors leaves a bad taste in the mouth, but it does not actually confer public funds on the individuals. The practice in the US Congress of attaching earmarks to bills (so-called porkbarrelling - the ears in question are sow's ears I guess), such as the Alaska 'road to nowhere', does not make payments to specific individuals and thus all constituents can gain from a Senator that 'brings home the bacon'.  

However, in less developed countries this kind of behaviour is endemic and poisons public institutions, eventually leading to violence (e.g. see Michela Wrong' study of Kenyan corruption in 'It's Our Turn to Eat').  In fragile states such as Timor-Leste, where corruption is rife and inequality becoming increasingly stark, jealousy is likely to express itself in unpredictable ways.  Factions will start to perceive who is favoured and who is slighted, and this may lead to a political climate whereby groups see winning elections (by fair means or foul) as the first necessary step in grasping control of public assets, and thus distribution to favoured parties.  Eventually, perhaps even inevitably, the Petroleum Fund will come under attack as it has in Chad, and will be broken open in order to scatter munificence amongst party supporters.  This would complete the country's descent into anarcho-petro state, joining luminaries such as Equitorial Guinea and Uzbekistan.  

Hardly a recipe for peace and prosperity for Timor-Leste.

 

Timor-Leste scuba photo competition

A good bit of positive publicity for T-L, after the successful marathon, Tour de Timor and Sunset Fair, this place is shaping up to be a boutique destination for discerning travellers. These photos are amazing, and a hat-tip goes to Wayne at Freeflow Diving for doing such great judging, even with a bad back and spaced out on painkillers.

via www.guardian.co.uk