|
India Thinkers Net Archives Index
|
Subscribe
|
|
| << March26, 2006 - [India Thinkers Net]Rebecca,Yogi,Sukla etc |
March30, 2006 - [India Thinkers Net]Apostasy laws,Nepal news,Arif & Rebecca's postings >> |
|
[1] From: Regi P George <george_regi@yahoo.com> Date: Tue Mar 28, 2006 Subject: Water torture - Privatisation leaves us high and dry. Water torture - Privatisation leaves us high and dry Water torture - Privatisation leaves us high and dry Monday, March 20 2006 @ 11:37 AM GMT Brighton news sheet Schnews takes an irreverent look at the privatisation of water supplies in the UK, which since 1988 has lead to huge price hikes for users and bumper profits for corporations – a situation being repeated the world over. Corporations have to splash out billions every year to persuade us to buy unneeded crap. But no such problems exist when they have a grip on more essential, life-sustaining, natural resources, like water. You don't need to fork out millions for flashy PR men and mount big dollar advertising splashes to flog H2O. Who has to persuade us to use water? They've got us over a barrel on that one. Privatisation was supposed to bring competition, but if a water company decides to rip you off for the water you use and can't be bothered to repair cracked pipes, alternatives are in short supply. Worse still, the water corporations' focus on profits at all cost makes them unable and unwilling to do anything to meet the current water shortages, as money that could have gone into maintenance leaks away into shareholders' pockets. Here in the UK the government spent most of the last 150 years (and loads of taxpayer cash) buying up the water companies, convinced that private corporations are not the best organisations to deliver such an essential service. All that changed in 1989 when the Thatcher government flogged off the lot under the 1988 Water Act. And in case no one was interested in picking up a monopoly or two, the firesale came with some additional incentives; ?5 billion worth of debts owed by the water authorities would be written off and a ?1.6 billion subsidy would be given up front. Monopoly, debt write-off and a cash incentive still not enough for you? Well, how about having the companies at a bargain basement 22% discount too?! Unsurprisingly pre-tax profits of the 10 water companies then rose by almost 150% in the first 9 years of privatisation. OFWAT, the sector's regulatory body, identified three main components of customers' bills: operating costs, capital charges (for investment and renewals), and operating profits. Over the period since privatisation, operating expenditure as a proportion of bills has shrunk; the capital charges have risen; but operating profits, which have more than doubled, account for virtually the entire increase in customers' bills. And the tide shows no signs of turning. In the week when Thames Water announced that there would be a hosepipe ban in London, the company's shareholders also enjoyed a 10% profit. No "cash drought" on the horizon then? Although it's raining cash for investors it's more like a golden-shower for the less fortunate customers. Not only has OFWAT agreed to further massive price hikes, but Thames Water also manages to lose over a third of the water through the antiquated Victorian pipe system that they just can't seem to afford to fix (pissing away 1 billion litres a year, enough to fully supply Birmingham). The company had agreed an investment plan with the regulator, but then curiously spent ?350 million less on it than planned, the equivalent of 10% off every customer's bill. So where did that 10% end up? Drained away down the profit plug hole perhaps? Thames Water, whose 8 million customers will be affected by the ban, says two unusually dry winters have caused "serious" water shortages. Had the water companies invested in infrastructure maybe they wouldn't be losing a third of our water. In the current climate of "eco-awareness", the UK fails miserably in terms of utilising our rainwater. Only a desultory 5% finds its way into our water supply. Our suppliers whinge and moan about shortcomings in the weather, but can't be bothered to dip into their piggy banks to bale us out – maybe saving it all for a rainy day. Thames Water did, however, last year feel flush enough to throw a ?2.2 million pay-packet at their top four directors. All in, the German owned company's liquid profits came in at a cool ?385.5 million. Londoners must have experienced that sinking feeling, as they suffered a 21% increase in their water bills. WATER PALAVER And how likely is it that things will improve now that things are hotting up for all of us climate-wise? Being able to plant your vegetables out a month earlier than usual is not the only symptom of global warming and climate change; the country's water supply is evaporating at such a rate that hosepipe bans, showering instead of jumping in the bath and putting a brick in your cistern may not be enough to prevent us from getting a lot thirstier yet. With more cars on the road and planes in the sky carbon dioxide emissions will only keep on rising. But don't worry - the free market will save us… The idiocy of water privatisation has become a global pandemic (would that be Evian Flu perhaps?) Africans have long been without a proper water supply, but private companies (who picked up local water companies at bargain basement prices during a spate of privatisation in the 1990s) have still been flooding customers with higher bills. According to a report by the University of Wi*censored*ersrand, 22,000 people in Johannesburg are disconnected from water supplies each month because they can't afford to pay steeply rising water bills. The problem affects the whole country - in a population of 44 million, 10 million South Africans have had their supplies cut. The result? 43,000 deaths from diarrhoea last year, and an outbreak of cholera affecting 135,000. "I would say they are criminals" says Pascal Kerneis from the influential lobby organisation European Services Forum. No, not the water companies, obviously! He reckons campaigners against water privatisation are just plain stupid not to think that water is best delivered by corporations. Pascal and his cronies lead the drive to include water in the 5th chapter of the General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS). The European Union has also been pushing hard to include water at recent WTO talks, which are host to the negotiations for a range of GATS agreements aiming to carve up the planet for the general consumption of profit-hungry multinationals. Sustained pressure from a range of activist and citizens' groups has recently succeeded in getting the WTO to drop the water proposal from the current GATS discussions, but it's surely only a matter of time before the constant drip, drip of corporate lobbying erodes common sense. The GATS agreement would have been another way in for the corporations - who can currently only hope to persuade unwilling governments to flog off their public infrastructures through the 'conditions' which are attached to any International Monetary Fund or World Bank loans. Whilst this recent victory has made it harder for the corporations, many people in the hottest parts of the planet still can't afford to pay their bill. This week, The Fourth World Water Forum takes place in Mexico City, and will look at how anti-privatisation activities are breaking the corporate grip on our water supplies. Edited from www.schnews.org.uk MORE INFORMATION Find out more at www.comda.org.mx or get to grips with GATS by visiting www.corporateeurope.org/water/gatswater2006.pdf - and pay a visit to the Public Services International Research Unit's briefing papers on water privatisation across the globe, including the UK at www.psiru.org -------------------- [2] From: Regi P George <george_regi@yahoo.com> Date: Tue Mar 28, 2006 Subject: Re: [indiathinkersnet] Sonia's "right thing to do" Soina's resignation is once again showing the third rated dirty politics of soft hindutva called congress. It only prooves how the Hindutva B team surrendor to its elder brothers request. If Sonia/congress had the courtesy on what issue she resigned then she should resigned at the same time when congress/bjp trapped jaya bachen on the office of profit issue. The poor congress leaders are playing another game with her resignation is showing more the ideology less ritiwing politics. I don't understand why congress party is afraid to debate the issue in the parliament, why sonia cannot face the parliament on this issue. why both rightwing parties running away from a political discussion and consensus on this issue? This kind of drama of resignation and running away by our top political leaders are how good for the nation? How could we trust this congress party and its leadership? is our political leadership and opposition leader matured enough to face this kind of crisis in this country? Once again rightwings political parties showing they have no ideology to lead this nation. And lack of ideology leading our political leadership to chaos and drams. BJP as a political party don't even know how many of its MP's are holding office of profit. Another side they are trying to make political mileage out of the same crisis they are in. Sonia have no other choice left, because as part of the rightwing politics she is afraid to face the parliament and people for an open discussion. Poor Indians when you will learn to defeat these rightwing politicians who do not have any ideology which support the indain mass, which do not decalre any solidarity to indian poor, dalits, aborigins, backwards and miniority. Support the struggle backed by the Left and all socio, enviornmental groups of India for a new era in india. Social stability should be the base of economic stability. Without social staibilit how economic stability support the mass? When every Indians right to work (employment right) we fill that day each house become economically stable and that make our nation a stable economy. Not any privatisation and foriegn investment can bring this stability. Defeat congress Defeat BJP Defeat all rightwing political groups regi. Vijaya Kumar <m_vijayakumar@yahoo.com> wrote: The resignation of Sonia Gandhi is no doubt a virtue derived out of compulsion, but who forced that compulsion out of a trivial and ambiguous issue? Who in this country would think/agree that it is wrong to head NAC while being a MP (what ever be the technicalities)? It is strange that the opposition ----------------------- [3] From: Sukla Sen <suklasen@yahoo.com> Date: Wed Mar 29, 2006 Subject: Chernobyl Disaster Two Decades Back: IAEA Still Lying Through Its Teeth? http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1739394,00.html UN accused of ignoring 500,000 Chernobyl deaths · Atomic agency says toll will not exceed 4,000 · Doctors 'overwhelmed' by cancers and mutations John Vidal, environment editor Saturday March 25, 2006 The Guardian United Nations nuclear and health watchdogs have ignored evidence of deaths, cancers, mutations and other conditions after the Chernobyl accident, leading scientists and doctors have claimed in the run-up to the nuclear disaster's 20th anniversary next month. -------------------------- [4] From: Sukla Sen <suklasen@yahoo.com> Date: Tue Mar 28, 2006 Subject: Indo-US Nuke Deal: Indian Elite's Ugly Dreams Are Still Far from Being Realised I. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/25/MNGNRHTURA1.DTL&hw=J\ ames%2BSterngold&sn=002&sc=649 San Francisco Chronicle Bush's nuclear agreement with India on shaky legs Several countries, some in Congress want more details James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer Saturday, March 25, 2006 Growing resistance to President Bush's proposed nuclear cooperation deal with India is threatening to slow, and possibly kill, an agreement that the president has described as vital to improved relations with the budding South Asian power. The deal, involving a change in the law that would permit sales of civilian nuclear power technology and equipment to India, was the capstone of Bush's visit to India earlier this month and was hailed as the key to a breakthrough in what have long been wary relations between the two countries. Shortly after the president returned from India, the White House sent Congress draft legislation to enact the agreement. But some members of Congress and a number of congressional staffers said the proposed bill would sharply limit congressional oversight, which has increased skepticism from Republicans and Democrats who are worried about the proliferation of nuclear technology and about possibly boosting India's nuclear weapons program. "Every day that more questions are asked about this deal is another day toward the deal being placed in jeopardy," Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., co-chairman of the Bipartisan Task Force on Nonproliferation, said in an interview. "The more (lawmakers) understand the deal, the more trouble the deal will have." In another potential setback, the Bush administration ran into serious questions this week about the deal from other countries that must approve any changes to the rules on trade in nuclear equipment and materials. Under international rules, such sales are prohibited because India, which possesses a nuclear weapons arsenal, has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the key international agreement preventing the spread of technology and materials that can be used to build weapons. The Nuclear Suppliers Group, a 45-nation body that regulates trade in nuclear technology, must agree to make an exception for India to allow the deal to proceed. But at a meeting of the body in Vienna this week, the United States faced a number of serious questions about the agreement and ultimately failed to get other members to place the India deal on the agenda for the group's annual meeting in May, at least for now, several people with knowledge of the talks told The Chronicle. A State Department spokeswoman said she had received no official word on the Vienna meeting and so could not confirm the reports. But one diplomatic official in Washington, who requested anonymity because he is not authorized to comment publicly, confirmed to The Chronicle that the Bush administration had been slowed in its efforts to obtain approval from the Nuclear Suppliers Group, at least for now. Markey said he had heard, too, that there was resistance to quick passage of an exemption for India from some member countries of the suppliers group. "Yes, there are several countries that have reservations about the deal," Markey said. "They are insisting on getting enough time to ask their questions." Nuclear experts and some members of Congress have expressed concern that the deal, although limited to civilian sales, might indirectly aid India's weapons program, spurring an Asian arms race and encouraging other countries to seek exemptions from the restrictions on nuclear trade. Some lawmakers said they would consider modifications to ensure that the deal does not allow India to expand its weapons program. At the least, concerns over the legislation could slow congressional consideration of the deal, perhaps until next year, which would represent a major reversal for the Bush administration, which is facing resistance on a number of other policy fronts. "In Congress, this one clearly crosses party lines," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington, which opposes the agreement. "The bottom line is this will not come out of Congress the way it came in." One well-placed GOP staffer, who asked that he not be identified because only members of Congress are allowed to publicly express opinions on the deal, said some Republican lawmakers are especially concerned that the safeguards in the agreement Bush brought back from New Delhi appear to be weaker than expected, raising fears that India could build more nuclear warheads with minimal international monitoring. "There is tremendous ambivalence on this" in Congress, the staffer said. "We are going to expose some fault lines in this agreement that the White House doesn't want us to expose, and it may not pass." The White House has continued to press hard for the deal. Bush, speaking in West Virginia on Wednesday, said it is important to improve relations with India and insisted that the Indians have "proven themselves to be a nonproliferator, that they're a transparent democracy, that it's in our interest for them to develop nuclear power to help their economy grow." Under the terms of the agreement, U.S. companies would be permitted to sell civilian nuclear power technology to India in return for India permitting international inspections of some of its civilian nuclear facilities. But facilities used for weapons production would remain off-limits. All in all, 14 of India's 22 nuclear facilities would be opened, but the precise terms of the agreement have not been finalized, another factor slowing congressional action. The deal would open a new market for American power reactor producers -- as well as those from other countries -- and would give the booming Indian economy a source of desperately needed energy, as well as recognition as a legitimate nuclear power. What has particularly upset some critics, including members of Congress, is that India would have the right to choose which facilities were monitored and which were not, including any facilities it builds in the future. In particular, a breeder reactor that can produce large amounts of plutonium for weapons is to remain off limits to inspectors. In addition, the proposed legislation contains language that appears to reduce congressional oversight. Under current law, the president can create an exception for a country. But for civilian nuclear trade to proceed, the Senate and the House of Representatives must pass resolutions affirming the exemptions from current prohibitions. If a country is already a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the nuclear trade can be halted only if both chambers of Congress pass a resolution rejecting the sales within 90 days of the president's order. The package drafted by the White House seeks to have it both ways for India. It suggests that India be granted an exemption from the laws prohibiting nuclear technology trade with a non-treaty country. But it also insists that India should be treated like a signatory country, which means only a hasty joint resolution by both chambers could stop the deal. That timetable would be very difficult to meet. "I can tell you, a lot of people are concerned that the legislation is just too high-handed," said another congressional staffer. "It all but eliminates congressional oversight, and the members are just not interested in giving that up." E-mail James Sterngold at jsterngold@sfchronicle.com. II. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/03/27/no_e\ xemption_for_india_on_nuclear_treaty/ The Boston Globe EDWARD MARKEY No exemption for India on nuclear treaty By Edward Markey | March 27, 2006 PRESIDENT BUSH'S zeal for promoting global commercial deals at the expense of national security -- apparent in the Dubai ports fiasco -- has now led him to propose a huge loophole in international law for India that threatens the world. In the deal, the United States would join India to blow a hole in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, shaking the foundation of international cooperation to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. The same president who warned that the United States must not send ''mixed signals to the world" is fast becoming confusion's favorite semaphore. India is the world's largest democracy, but it is also a nuclear outlier. It has steadfastly refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, refused to accept full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards over all of its nuclear facilities, diverted peaceful technology into several nuclear weapons, and continued to build a nuclear arsenal. Under existing US law or under international law, India has disqualified itself from full civil nuclear cooperation. Bush has now decided to try to override US law and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to accommodate India's defiance. But he is unleashing a dangerous new dynamic in an unstable world. Granting India a special exemption from the nonproliferation rules sets the table for a nuclear weapons banquet that could include a large group of unwanted guests. Russia may seek special exemptions from the nuclear rules to share nuclear materials with Iran. China will have a free pass to grant special exemptions for Pakistan or North Korea. Indeed, Pakistan has already said that it wants the same special exemptions that India gets. The Pakistani Foreign Ministry has stated that, ''We do expect that any concessions and exception granted to India in the context of NSG [Nuclear Suppliers Group] or any other multilateral arrangement will be applicable to Pakistan also." Moreover, every one of the 188 nations that signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty will ask, ''If people who don't sign are entitled to the same benefits as those who do, why bother playing by the rules?" Good question. Bush justifies granting India this special exemption by saying that India is a special case -- it is a responsible nation that has not spread nuclear weapons technologies to others. India may look good next to Pakistan's A.Q. Khan, the weapons scientist who secretly assisted the Libyan and Iranian nuclear programs. But in 1974, India used US technology to detonate a nuclear explosive -- it acquired the technology by pledging that it was for peaceful purposes only. India broke that pledge claiming it had detonated a ''peaceful nuclear explosion." India does need energy to fuel its growing economy, but the United States can help to counter India's looming coal-fired contribution to climate change without undermining the global nuclear nonproliferation regime. India has the third largest coal reserves in the world, and coal plants produce 67 percent of India's electricity. India burns dirty coal at a high rate that will only increase in the future, leading to emissions that will overwhelm all the efforts of the Kyoto signatories to bring greenhouse gas emissions under control. A realistic, safe, and practical energy plan for India would be a US-India energy partnership to maximize energy efficiency, aggressively pursue renewable energy sources, and support cleaner coal plants. Energy efficiency and renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and hydropower should be used to make unnecessary as many coal plants as possible. When a coal plant is built, we can help build them with the lowest possible emissions of child-killing particulates, with gasification to reduce mercury and sulfur dioxide emissions that cause acid rain and smog, and with technology to sequester carbon dioxide and prevent further global warming. The solution for a lasting alliance with India will not be achieved by blowing a hole in the nonproliferation treaty. The United States should return to principles that can guide its bilateral relations with the world's largest democracy without unleashing a nuclear Pandora's Box. Representative Edward Markey, a Democrat of Malden, is cochairman of the Bipartisan Task Force on Nonproliferation. |
|
| << March26, 2006 - [India Thinkers Net]Rebecca,Yogi,Sukla etc |
March30, 2006 - [India Thinkers Net]Apostasy laws,Nepal news,Arif & Rebecca's postings >> |
|
India Thinkers Net Archives Index
|
Subscribe
|
|
|
Archives powered by Zinester's Mailing List Service
Details on India Thinkers Net |
Browse for more newsletters at Zinester's Ezine Directory
Managed by Zinester's Mailing List Management |