Former Bank of Ireland Chief Executive Michael Soden appeared on last night's Vincent Brown in an attempt to defend both the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) and the purchase by Brian Lenihan of €54bn worth of toxic loans.
Naturally, it was always going to be a tough night for Mr Soden as the general public are far from impressed at not only being asked to bail out this country's banks but also to pay €7bn over the odds at the current market value.
However, it was not the inns and outs of the deal that caught my attention in the end but rather Mr Soden's comment, in response to anti-NAMA protestor Rita Fagan, that society should not be carrying the burden of single mothers.
Hear hear Mr Soden! Sure wasn't it the single mothers of Ireland who became consumed with greed and engaged in reckless lending practices in order to generate massive profits for a privileged minority? And those same single mothers are naturally responsible for bankrupting future generations, plunging Ireland into an unprecedented recession, and then asking for a hand-out from the same taxpayers that they previously showed utter contempt towards.
No Mr Soden, it was the bankers! So I think it is the presence of greedy, negligent and downright corrupt individuals within the banking system that are the burden Irish society should not have to bear.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Climate Change - Wait and See
I recently had a very polarised discussion with a climate change sceptic. The individual in question has a scientific background, stays up to date with developments in the field and believes that each and every individual should aim to live a more sustainable life.
So far so good!
The problem is that climate change has yet to become a proven fact in his eyes. To him, it is still just a scientific theory, albeit a popular one, and he thinks it foolish to agree treaties, enforce targets and enact laws that reduce global carbon emissions. He is not against assisting developing countries to avoid the dirty growth that characterised the advancement of developed countries during the industrial revolution but thinks the theory of climate change has to first be proven.
So in essence, he is advocating a policy of wait and see.
I explained to him that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is tasked with reviewing and assessing the most recent information (of all types) relevant to the understanding of climate change. Its work is guided by thousands of scientists from all over the world and the vast majority of theses scientists believe that climate change is real and could lead to millions upon millions of people suffering the devastating effects.
It is a scientific and not a political body and is telling us that we need to act now and that is what I am advocating.
Whichever side is right in this debate will result in disproportionately different outcomes however. If we wait and see, and the most cautious of IPCC predictions are realised, then hundreds of millions of people will be affected by climate change and the world may pass a point of no return and have to contend with irreversible climate change. If on the other hand, the world takes heed of the IPCC and negotiates a fair and safe climate deal in Copenhagen this December, then regardless of the contested reality of climate change, developing countries will be assisted in achieving sustainable growth and the developed world will be forced to move away from fossil fuels which are depleting fast anyway.
Waying up the outcomes, I cannot fathom why anyone would take such a risk, especially when the vast majority of scientific opinion rests on one side. Waiting for retrospective proof is dangerous, impractical and dismissive of the concerns of some of the world’s most vulnerable people.
So far so good!
The problem is that climate change has yet to become a proven fact in his eyes. To him, it is still just a scientific theory, albeit a popular one, and he thinks it foolish to agree treaties, enforce targets and enact laws that reduce global carbon emissions. He is not against assisting developing countries to avoid the dirty growth that characterised the advancement of developed countries during the industrial revolution but thinks the theory of climate change has to first be proven.
So in essence, he is advocating a policy of wait and see.
I explained to him that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is tasked with reviewing and assessing the most recent information (of all types) relevant to the understanding of climate change. Its work is guided by thousands of scientists from all over the world and the vast majority of theses scientists believe that climate change is real and could lead to millions upon millions of people suffering the devastating effects.
It is a scientific and not a political body and is telling us that we need to act now and that is what I am advocating.
Whichever side is right in this debate will result in disproportionately different outcomes however. If we wait and see, and the most cautious of IPCC predictions are realised, then hundreds of millions of people will be affected by climate change and the world may pass a point of no return and have to contend with irreversible climate change. If on the other hand, the world takes heed of the IPCC and negotiates a fair and safe climate deal in Copenhagen this December, then regardless of the contested reality of climate change, developing countries will be assisted in achieving sustainable growth and the developed world will be forced to move away from fossil fuels which are depleting fast anyway.
Waying up the outcomes, I cannot fathom why anyone would take such a risk, especially when the vast majority of scientific opinion rests on one side. Waiting for retrospective proof is dangerous, impractical and dismissive of the concerns of some of the world’s most vulnerable people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
