MY VIEWS 2001: January-February

January 2/2001/POLITALK: Opening statement

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "politalk-us1" <Politalk-US1@egroups.com>

Subject: Fw: [Pol-US1] Opening Statements

Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 14:29:58 -0800

 

Dear Friends, my name is Lucio Munoz, I am an independent researcher based

in Vancouver, Canada. Since the discussion will be based only on the

effects of globalization, presumibly only economic globalization, I would

like to start to remind everybody in this group that just as our previous

focus on localized development appears not to have been sustainable, a focus

only on globalized development may not be appropriate either unless we

assume that sustainable localize development is a given. I make this

comment humbly because I see sustainability as a process that must balance

globalization forces with localization forces. This way clear links between

these interacting processes an sustainability frameworks can be created and

expected effects identified in terms of rights and obligations(social,

economic, and environmental), and therefore, choices. With this

clarification I will focus my attention only on the effects of globalization

processes when I find it appropriate.

Please receive my warm greetings;

Sincerely yours;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "Politalk" <info@politalk.com>

> To: "Politalk-US1" <politalk-us1@egroups.com>

> Sent: Monday, January 01, 2001 2:26 PM

> Subject: [Pol-US1] Opening Statements

>

>

> > This discussion group is now open for business!

> >

> > Please send your opening statements to:

> >

> > politalk-us1@egroups.com

> >

> > Only one opening statement per person (Tues & Wed)!

> >

> > Use your opening statement to:

> >

> > 1) Introduce Yourself (briefly)

> > 2) Define your interest in this subject.

> > 3) Identify the most pressing questions you would like to see

> > addressed during this discussion.

> > 4) Summarize your opinions on the issue.

> > 5) Other......

> > --

January 2/2001/POLITALK: Introduction

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "politalk-us1" <Politalk-US1@egroups.com>

Cc: <lsalzman@rg>

Subject: Re: [Pol-US1] introducing myself

Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 14:34:34 -0800

Dear Lorna, to me this expression summarizes one of the sustainability

dilemmas.

It implies that if the capitalist growth society had sound,

sane and sustainable values and goals, it could be ecologically sound and

socially just, can this be a move toward sustainability?. I would said yes,

but you are not descarting neither the economy, nor the society, nor the

environment, you are bringing them together in a win-win-win situation.

However, in my opinion as long as these win-win-win situations are fueled by

maximization forces, we are going to still be a little far away from true

sustainability, specially under a model of globalization only.

As a first big step, efforts should be directed toward finding ways to make

the capitalist growth society ecologically and socially sound, sane, and

more self-sustainable. This in my opinion needs a combination of

rationality and responsibility.

I think it may be of interest to some of you an article published by

"Sustainability Review" last year which I wrote called "Rationality,

Responsability, and Sustainability: When Can Human Behavior Have A Chance to

Be Sustainable?/Munoz/2000, which can be found at:

http://www.eeeee.net/ee2020.htm or at

http://www.unq.edu.ar/theomai/artmunoz002.htm

As ecological and social pressures within the captalist growth society

become binding, a transition toward sustainability is more likely, but as

things appear to be going with the clock of global warming and the politics

of CO2 ticking constantly, I hope we can make the turn on time for humanity.

My very warm greetings to all.

Sincerely;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

 

----- Original Message -----

From: <lsalzman@>

To: <Politalk-US1@egroups.com>

Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 12:13 PM

Subject: [Pol-US1] introducing myself

 

>

> On this list I seek to propose as well as find ecologically sound and

> socially just ALTERNATIVES to the unsound, insane and unsustainable values

> and goals of the capitalist growth society.

> You cant have the former without discarding the latter.

>

> Sorry to be so long but I will not post more than one a day.

>

> Lorna Salzman

> Brooklyn NY

>

January 3/2001/POLITALK; Globalization or no globalization is not the choice from my point of view

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Politalk-US1" <politalk-us1@egroups.com>,

"Javed Ahmad \(by way of Politalk\)" <info@politalk.com>

Subject: Globalization or not globalization is not the choice from my point of view

Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:29:06 -0800

Dear Javed, I believe that the list of positives and negatives that you

mentioned in these two countries are the same in all developing countries

and as you explained in detailed, the list of negatives is greater than the

list of possitives and if we took this in full abstraction, it could be used

to illustrate that so far the net benefits of globalization for developing

countries appears to be negative.

And it seems that as the needs for investment, the need for exchange rate to

pay for debts, and the need to meet the social and economic expectations of

the new consumers/new jobs market will put more pressure on lower social,

economic, and environmental standards for global enterprises in order for

these countries and their governments to

compete for the dollars of highliy sophisticated international power houses

probably already ready with an evacuation plan in each place in case

standards become suddenly

unattractive to them.

The question or choice for me is not globalization or no globalization, but

how to face head on globalization forces so that they are from the beginning

as responsible abroad as at home, and avoid what I called the "trash and keep

syndrome" where poluting interprises move to other countries keeping their

original home address to somehow avoid still more foreign accountability.

To me there are three aspects that need to be put under control to achieve

some form of "laming the bull" of globalization: these aspects are

maximization goals, partial regulation boxes, and system dominance, which

according to my view are the key forces to unsustainability; and therefore,

need to be addressed. I have written a paper that is available for review,

and possible publication where I am trying to bring these issues to the

attention of people like you called "Maximization, Partial Regulation, and

System Dominance: Can they be drivers of Sustainability?". The theory in

this article appear almost fully consistent with the the issues and consequences

of globalization that you so nicely summarize in your posting from the

developing country point of view.

My warm greetings to all;

Sincerely yours;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: "Javed Ahmad (by way of Politalk)" <info@politalk.com>

To: "Politalk-US1" <politalk-us1@egroups.com>

Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:31 AM

Subject: [Pol-US1] Some Examples

> This is my second input:

>

> As some participants of the discussion have pointed out that there

> are both pluses and minuses of the economic globalization process. I

> wish to mention two examples:

.....

.....

>

> Of course, there is the question of worsening environment and

> pollution caused by the factories. Countries don't want to impose

> strict laws because that may drive their foreign investors away to

> other countries not so worried. The country is generating much more

> foreign exchange that helps finance foreign debt servicing. Now what

> are you going to suggest? Globalization or no globalization???

>

> Javed S. Ahmad, Bratislava

>

January 3/2001/POLITALK: Sovereingty issue, a different angle

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Politalk-US1" <politalk-us1@egroups.com>,

"Tim Erickson" <det@visi.com>

Subject: Sovereingty issue, a different angle

Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:03:06 -0800

Dear Tom, once I made a comment in a worldbank discussion previously linking

the globalization process and what I call the "CONE EFFECT of redistrubution

processes.

Under this view, you can look at the world before globalization as a cone

with a flat top and an acute base. At the top were local elites and at the

bottom the most marginalized in each country. Economic pressures and

degradation pressures increase from to top down(cost trickle down effect);

economic benefits and standard of livings increases from the bottom

up(benefit trickle up effect); net benefits decrease from the top down(the

CONE EFFECT); and national sovereinty is eroded proportionally to the Cone

effect and therefore decreases from the top down.

From this view, it can be seen that sovereinty issues are more important to

those at the bottom or the middle of the cone than to those a the top of the

cone, and these are real issues that under a world system based on

dominant/dominated interactions keeps the bottom tightly put. These issues

of soverainty can then be used by local elites and international players to

take advantage as much as possible of the cone effect.

Under unchecked globalization, the top of the cone becomes less wide(duty

corporation greed and mergers either replacing or colluding with local

elites) and the bottom becomes more acute(as even the ones that were before

in the middle of the cone may be pushed downwards closer to the bottom and

those who were in the bottom before may find thenselves still more

marginalized).

Unless we find ways to use globalization forces to open up the base of the

cone to normalize the cone effect(ex. equality of benefits and costs and

redistributive mechanisms), the cone will start sooner or later to pop

up/break down from the bottom up, and we may have a world wide system

failure.

Once I suggested that the creation of a world wide institution called the

WORLD POVERTY FUND to address the issues raised by this cone effect could be

a good sustainability move to tight globalization forces to for example

addressing the poverty gap, specially if based on a worldwide basic

sustainability set. THE WORLD BANK CAN NOT PERFORM THIS TASK AS ITS

DEDICATION TO ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY IS IN CONFLICT WITH POVERTY ERRADICATION

GOALS, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW. Therefore, I believe a separation of duties

would be good for both the world bank and the world poverty fund, and then

effective coordination between them could be the rule.

This are my ideas and comments for now and I am aware I may be wrong, and

therefore, your comments will be very much appreciated.

My warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: "Tim Erickson" <de>

To: "Politalk-US1" <politalk-us1@egroups.com>

Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 3:42 AM

Subject: [Pol-US1] Sovereignty

 

> Let's go ahead an open up the discussion:

>

> * * * * * * * * * * *

>

> As I began to research this topic, it became clear to me that one of

> the really sticky questions surrounding economic globalization is the

> question of national sovereignty.

>

> A byproduct of international treaties and organizations is some loss

> of domestic control over environment and labor standards. I'm

> wondering if this loss of local control is always negative, or if

> some environmental and trade issues don't require

> global/international solutions - even at the cost of local control.

>

> Don't the rich or developed nations always have more to fear from a

> loss of control than the poor or underdeveloped nations for whom

> control is really an abstract theoretical issue anyway?

>

> Can't the argument over national sovereignty be seen as an attempt by

> the economically well off nations to protect and preserve the

> privilege and economic wealth that they have already accumulated at

> the expense of developing nations?

>

> Any comments??

>

> Tim Erickson

> St. Paul, Minnesota

> Politalk Moderator

January 3/2001/POLITALK: Sovereingty issue a different angle

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Tim Erickson" <tim@k.com>

Subject: Re: [Pol-US1] Sovereingty issue, a different angle

Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 23:44:00 -0800

Dear Tom, I just found your message. My appologies for not making the point

clearer. I will try to answer your questions and see if I can clarify things for you.

Below, please read in between your message.

Greetings;

Lucio

----- Original Message -----

From: "Tim Erickson" <tim@poli.com>

To: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:54 PM

Subject: Re: [Pol-US1] Sovereingty issue, a different angle

 

> Lucio Munoz:

>

> I've read your message a couple of times and I just don't understand

> the cone analogy.

>

> >>Dear Tom, once I made a comment in a worldbank discussion

> >>previously linking the globalization process and what I call the

> >>"CONE EFFECT of redistrubution

> >>processes.

>

> Let me try and repeat what I've understood and you can fill in the

> blanks for correct what I'm misunderstanding.

>

> If I understand you correctly, your cone is inverted (wide at the top

> & narrow at the bottom), Elites are at the top, poor people at the

> bottom.

-

--------

Yes, the cone is inverted, and its implications could be conceived either

under localization or globalization.

----------

> The wide top represents the opportunity and benefits of being at the

> top and lack of pressure. The narrow base of the cone has little

> space for benefits and opportunity, but represents the pressure felt

> by those at the bottom.

----------------

Yes, this is the idea, but also the wide at the top implies concentration of

resources

----------------

> Once you bring "Sovereignty" into the story, I'm lost. I can't figure

> out what your trying to say. I'm also not quite sure what you mean by

> the top of the cone becoming less wide and the base more acute.

--------

An empirical observation indicates that the more resources you have, the

more likely is that you are your own boss and therefore, freer to do what

you want, which gives you more flexibility. So as the cone effect moves

from the top down, then your ability to be your own boss and your

flexibility decreases, which is an indication of eroding Sovereinty in this

view.

The top becoming less wide during unchecked globalization processes means to

represent concentration of resources in fewer hands/corporations/countries

and the base becoming more accute means the opposite because there are no

regulations: it is a free for all under unchecked globalization..

--------

> >>Under unchecked globalization, the top of the cone becomes less wide

--------

Please see above

--------

>

> >>Unless we find ways to use globalization forces to open up the base of

the

> >>cone to normalize the cone effect(ex. equality of benefits and costs and

> >>redistributive mechanisms),

---------

This means that we need to control globalization forces so that a more equal

world comes out and this is somehow related to the issues of dealing with

maximization culture, compartamentalized regulations, and system dominance

theory, and to create an institution with the sole purpose of dealing with

the poverty gap.

--------

> Any chance that you would be willing to clarify for me,

-------

I will avoid to go too much abstract in my thoughts, my appologies, little

by little. Greetings.

------

>

> Sorry,

>

> Tim Erickson

> Politalk Moderator

January 5/2001/POLITALK: Ugly is not always bad

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Mike Coburn" ,

"politalk-us1" <Politalk-US1@egroups.com>,

"L. Hogan" <>

Subject: Ugly is not always bad

Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 00:28:48 -0800

Dear Friends, Very interesting comments by Mr. Hogan and Mr. Coburn.

I got the perception from what I read that the WTO thinks that educating the

countries under its feet will make them less itchy and reduce the risk of

confrontation. In my opinion, the issue is not just knowing your rights,

but also of how to effectively implement those rights. Also the other issue

is that developing countries have no say on how those rights and obligations

are created in the first place as they are not active members, or am I

mistaken?.

However, I think the move to get educated in those issues in the long-term

may turn out to be good for

developing countries as it may plant the seeds for the creation of an

OMBUSMAN INSTITUTION later on and may provide the link to the international

court/world court, which would help with rights enforcements in an unbiased

and fair manner.

The world social organization(WSO) and the world environmental

organization(WEO) are just some year away anyway I think; and they also can

be brought later on under the ombusman institution and the

international/world court so that they can influece directly WTO behaviour

or they can intervine at the Ombudsman's level or the world court level.

Two issues I see: The issue with OMBUSMAN INSTITUTIONS is that their

decision are non-binding which encourages harrassing behavior from those on

dominants positions as they have the time and money to appeal if needed.

The other issue I see given the concentration of power of enviornmental

organization in a relatively short span of time is that the WEO may come

first, and a WIN-WIN WTO-WEO situation may be the biggest barrier to the

arrival of the WSO; and therefore, it may be the biggest barrier to

achieving global social accountability. In a micro-cosmo you can compare

this with today's eco-economic partnerships.

My warm greetings to all;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: "L. Hogan" <gunsofbrixton@earthlink.net>

To: "Mike Coburn" <michael.l.coburn@gte.net>; <politalk-us1@egroups.com>

Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 3:17 AM

Subject: Re: [Pol-US1] Re: The Ugliness of Globalization.

>

> WTO: New Policy Allows Agency To Accept Private Donations

> by Jonathan Peterson (Los Angeles Times, 28/12/2000).

>

> The World Trade Organization decided last month to accept private

> contributions in what it says is an effort to collect funds needed for

> programs to instruct developing countries on WTO rules and trade

> developments.

>

> "Essentially, the money would be used to help poor countries

> understand what their rights and obligations are under the WTO system,"

> said WTO representative Keith Rockwell. There have been no announcements

> of the amount of money the WTO is seeking for such programs.

> <snip>

>

January 6/2001/POLITALK: So where are your ideas Mr. Coburn

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Mike Coburn" <>,

"Politalk-US1" <politalk-us1@egroups.com>

Cc: "Tim Erickson" <tim@talk.com>

Subject: So where are your ideas Mr. Coburn?

Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 20:42:22 -0800

Dear Mr. Coburn, so far with all my respect you have been just criticizing

the ideas of others.

Just criticizing is not enough. If I do not agree with something, I usually

say why and offer an alternative scenario of my own. Otherwise, I do not

talk. See my postings, and if I bite I bite with academic teeth or common

sense, but I do not bite at random.

With respect to my posting, I will clarify for you everything, hopefully

then you will either take away or add to my posting:

a) Ombudsman Institution refers to " a monitoring agency which could be

internal or external or could be independent or not. In this case an

independent external institution would be desirable;

b) I believe more global institutions will come representing the environment

and society to neutralize the economic based institutions, for convinience I

called them that way, they can be call differently if you would like. This

institutional evolution is under way through various forms of parnerships.

b) And finally, there is nothing leftist in my postings, it is simply

SUSTAINABILITY THEORY A LA MUNOZ please visit my website if you would like

to completely get sick.

My apologies to others but I thought I joined an open and responsible

discussion, and I would like to continue to believe so.

However, perhaps this will be my last posting.

My warm greetings to all;

Sincerely;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: "Mike Coburn" <m>

To: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 6:20 PM

Subject: Re: [Pol-US1] Fw: Ugly is not always bad

> Lucio Munoz wrote:

>

> > I am sending this message again as I am not sure if it go delivered

> > yesterday,

> > greetings. Lucio

> >

> > ..........

> > Dear Friends, Very interesting comments by Mr. Hogan and Mr. Coburn.

> > I got the perception from what I read that the WTO thinks that educating

the countries under its feet will make them less itchy and reduce the risk

of confrontation. In my opinion, the issue is not just knowing your

rights, but also of how to effectively implement those rights. Also the other

issue is that developing countries have no say on how those rights and

>

> I believe this to be the real crux of the issue: I certainly do not know

what the WTO is as regards where it gets any _power_ to do anything. How did

any country get to be "under its feet". Did the WTO invade the country and

unseat the current government? If the "developing countries" are not "active

members" then why wouldn't the "developing countries" tell the WTO to stick it?

I don't understand why the USA doesn't tell em to stick it. Seems to me that it

is all simply elitist, nobility bullshit.

>

> > However, I think the move to get educated in those issues in the

long-term may turn out to be good for developing countries as it may plant

the seeds for the creation of an OMBUDSMAN INSTITUTION later on and may provide the

link to the international court/world court, which would help with rights enforcements

in an unbiased and fair manner.

>

> OK, I'll bite... What is an "OMBUDSMAN INSTITUTION" in twenty five words

or less and no URL pointing allowed.

> >

> > The world social organization(WSO) and the world environmental

> > organization(WEO) are just some year away anyway I think; and they also can

> > be brought later on under the ombusman institution and the

> > international/world court so that they can influece directly WTO

behaviour or they can intervine at the Ombudsman's level or the world court level.

> Gee, this is great... We can just pull bullshit organizations out of our

> various orifices and wave them around like so many protest signs. Why

would you think such silliness will accomplish anything?

> > Two issues I see: The issue with OMBUDSMAN INSTITUTIONS is that their

> > decision are non-binding which encourages harrassing behavior from

those on dominants positions as they have the time and money to appeal if needed.

>

> I'm becoming nauseous...

> > The other issue I see given the concentration of power of enviornmental

> > organization in a relatively short span of time is that the WEO may

come first, and a WIN-WIN WTO-WEO situation may be the biggest barrier to

the arrival of the WSO; and therefore, it may be the biggest barrier to

> > achieving global social accountability. In a micro-cosmo you can

compare this with today's eco-economic partnerships.

>

> One more left handed acronym and I _will_ puke.

>

> Mike Coburn

January 9/2001/POLITALK: No need to apologise

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Mike Coburn" <>,

"Politalk-US1" <politalk-us1@egroups.com>

Subject: No need to apologise

Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 01:55:21 -0800

Dear Mr. Coburn, let's assume that there are only two countries in the

world, the United States and Canada. The United States is under your

control and Canada is under my control, and so we are all the world. No

WTOs, and therefore no need for neutralizing forces such as WEO and the WSO,

and therefore no law of action and reaction. You do not want Canadians at

the border, and I do not want Americans at the border. You do what you

want, I do what I want. Nothing I do affects you, and nothing you do

affects me. No need for global police as you mind your internal business

and I mind mine. Does not this implies, no trade, no interdepence, and

therefore, perfect selfsuficiency and isolation and totally closed systems?.

This means no changes for globalization and no changes for combining our

gene pool to perhaps produce something better. Is that the type of world

you really want for you and your kids?. While I respect your choices, I

would not like to live in such a closed world. I agree, so far as humans we

have failed to account for all economic, social, and environmental issues at

the same time since the biginning of humanity due natural and/or artificial

competition, and that is why in my opinion we are into this environmental

and social mess right now. But this does not mean to me that we have to go

back to our old caves. We have to evolve as well as our institutions toward

sustainability it is our destiny or else we may all perish.

Your comments are welcome.

Sincerely yours;

Lucio Munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: "Mike Coburn" <>

To: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 1:41 AM

Subject: Re: [Pol-US1] So where are your ideas Mr. Coburn?

> To all persons reading this list: I am NOT going to apologize for

attempting to move the discussion towards something of substance. I have

seen nothing_ that anyone has posted that answers the basic questions about

how _any_ of the known entities or the proposed entities are to be empowered

or controlled.

Why do you, Lucio Munoz, believe that we need _more_ academic know it alls

than we already have? More importantly, why do you see this as a solution to the

> problem instead of the water muddying mess that it seems to me? My ideas

are very simple: You must control your own government and I must control

mine. I admit that I am doing a very poor job of controlling mine at present, but

for me to control my own government seems the correct approach. I can't even

> imagine what the WTO, or these other organizations think they could

possibly do to harm the United States at this point if "we the people" actually

controlled the US government.

>

>

> I have NEVER been one for patience or diplomacy. You have asked me for my

> ideas and I do not know how I can possibly be any more straight forward

than I have been. My ideas are simply that the IMF, the WTO, and all the rest of

> these supposedly smarter than I am organizations can go to blazes. Each

nation state is a nation state because the people of that nation state have

agreed to a certain morality on which to base their laws. I am not to mess with

that and whether I do it through some high minded global committee or not is

> irrelevant. The presentation of ideas and ideals is one thing and the

wielding of power is another. So I have ventured to ask in my own inflammatory and

> caustic fashion how it is that all of these think tanks (WTO, IMF, World

Bank) can be controlled so as to do the real producing people any good, and what

> I get is a proposal for more think tanks. The answer seems to be that

there actually is no way to control such organizations. These organizations

will continue to be funded by the corporations and the bankers so as to thwart

the will of the producing people of the world. And since that is the case

then they are worse than useless. More of them is not a very good answer.

Less of them and totally ignoring those that might exist would seem to be a better

> thing to do.

>

> Mike Coburn

January 9/2001/POLITALK: No need to apologise

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Politalk-US1" <politalk-us1@egroups.com>,

"sandra" <>

Subject: Re: [Pol-US1] No need to apologise

Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:06:17 -0800

Dear Sandra, the simplication I made using two names of developed

countries was a calculated move I made to be able to bring the issues of

concern of Mr. Coborn through two stages:

a) Total isolation and Partial isolation under perfect or perceived

equality;

b) Total isolation and partial isolation under extreme or real inequality.

For the first one, comparing two developed countries in this case was

better for me as Mr. Coborn holds the belief of a develped country, and I

live in another developed country.

The second part would have been somehow in the lines you made since I

was born, raised, and educated in a developing country, namely El Salvador.

These could have provided a good context to shaken Mr. Coborn's view or

at least to give him some food for thoughts. After all we are in this

discussion voluntarily to exchange our views, not to conquer the views of

other. To me diversity and equality is beautiful.

Given your posting, Sandra, and the implications of today's and past

sources of inequality you described, I have nothing more to add to this part

of the discussion other than saying that interdependence will always be

there, whether we like it or not(social, environmenal, and economic), and

our concern should be(it does not have to be) on finding ways to make it a

little more equal(ex. compensation, jubilee, redistribution, social nets,

sustainability insurance,....).

My warm greetings to all;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: "sandra"

To: "Politalk-US1" <politalk-us1@egroups.com>

Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:57 AM

Subject: Re: [Pol-US1] No need to apologise

> From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

> <...>

>

> > Dear Mr. Coburn, let's assume that there are only two countries in the

> > world, the United States and Canada. The United States is under your

> > control and Canada is under my control, and so we are all the world. No

>

> How would your illustration look like if the only two countries in the

world

> were the US and Bolivia? I'd really like to see one.

>

> > WTOs, and therefore no need for neutralizing forces such as WEO and the

> WSO,

> > and therefore no law of action and reaction. You do not want Canadians

at> > the border, and I do not want Americans at the border. You do what you

> > want, I do what I want. Nothing I do affects you, and nothing you do

> > affects me. No need for global police as you mind your internal

business> > and I mind mine. Does not this implies, no trade, no interdepence, and

> > therefore, perfect selfsuficiency and isolation and totally closed

> systems?.

> > This means no changes for globalization and no changes for combining our

> > gene pool to perhaps produce something better. Is that the type of

world> > you really want for you and your kids?. While I respect your choices, I

> > would not like to live in such a closed world. I agree, so far as

humans>

> we While most of us would probably agree about interaction, trade and

openness> between the two countries, you have to make a distinction between the

> interaction where both sides (the US *and* Bolivia) are benefiting from

it,> and the interaction which hurts one, and benefits the other.

>

> The starting points for the two sides are quite unequal (and not because

> Americans have been smarter than Bolivians through the last few

centuries),> and the *existing* rules (IMF, WB, WTO) are just ensuring the preservation

> of this inequality. The 'trickle down' effect is something I get so mad

> about, whenever it's mentioned, because it's very easy to find out that

the> wealth (in already poor countries) goes to very few hands, while the huge

> majority of people get poorer and poorer. I've recently read that Bolivia,

> as one of the 'richest' (in natural resources) countries in the world, has

> the standard of living below Ethiopia's. Even if this was an exaggeration,

> I'm sure it's not too far from the truth.

>

> I think it was Kike Roach that once said something like: "If you had this

> law that allowed you to take my coat, and my father's coat, and my

> grandfather's coat, and now you change that law and tell me we're equal -

> how can we be equal when you still have all our coats, and my family is

> freezing to death?". I most probably dramatized it a bit, but you get the

> idea.

>

> > have failed to account for all economic, social, and environmental

issues at the same time since the biginning of humanity due natural and/or

> artificial competition, and that is why in my opinion we are into this

environmental and social mess right now. But this does not mean to me that

we have to go back to our old caves. We have to evolve as well as our institutions

> toward sustainability it is our destiny or else we may all perish.

>

> I don't see anything natural or competitive in the history of conquest and

> colonization. I see cruelty and ignorance on one side, and suffering on

the other.

>

> Ask Mexicans why we're in this mess and they might give you quite a

> different picture: because of the mass migration of North American dirty

> industry to their country, where labour rights and environmental

protection are virtually non-existent. Try reading 'Desert Capitalism' by Kathryn

> Kopinak.It might tell you lot about the greatness of interaction, openness

> and inter-dependence of the North America and Mexico.

>

>

> Sandra

January 10/2001/Regulation and Accountability

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Politalk-US1" <politalk-us1@egroups.com>,

"mckeever"

Subject: Re: [Pol-US1] Regulation / Accountability

Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:27:46 -0800

Dear Friends, some positive comments here.

In my opinion, Dr. Ahiakpor simply reflects the traditional economic

thinking in his postings in which individual self-interest is the economic

invisible hand.

This view should have evolved once the Bruntland commission/1997 called for the incorporation of environmental of social and environmental concerns into the

Traditional economic market, but there are some that still hold traditional views

dispite of that.

I believe looking closely to the issue, that traditional economists/neoliberals

in reality only oppose binding and independent regulation because under no

regulation it can be shown that self-interest will lead to economic over

exploitation/unsustainability and to a market failure.

What they like is soft regulation or voluntary regulation as under this form

Of regulation economic incentives are perceived higher than under binding

independent regulation(self-interest push effort) while at the same time

there is some form of protection against over exploitation/unsustainability(the

precautionary push on effort) .

This is the scenario in my opinion that traditional economists/neoliberals

have as the heart of free trade and globalization. However, under soft

regulation or self-regulation, the issue of enforcing accountability becomes

more important specially if accountability is self-regulated.

From my view, it can be seen that globalization is being implemented some

What within the self-regulatory aspect of regulation while the mechanism of

Accountability in case soft-regulation/self-regulation fails appear not to exist,

and if they exist, they appear to be also self-regulated, which under a system of

dominant/dominated components can be more detrimental specially for the

marginalized. I respect the views of everybody, and I am truely enjoying

this exchange of views. PLEASE EXPRESS YOUR VIEWS ON THESE ISSUES.

My warm greetings

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "mckeever"

To: <Politalk-US1@egroups.com>

Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 7:59 AM

Subject: [Pol-US1] Regulation

 

> Dr. James C.W. Ahiakpor in a recent post repeats some of the neoliberal

> mantra to suggest that regulation is not required since self interest will

> balance out competing interests.

>

> This mantra is composed of several items of fuzzy thinking, among them: it

> is not possible to have regulation in a democracy.

>

> If a democracy is a form of representative government in which the will of

> the people is expressed, then it is surely possible for the people to

> express their will that a regulation be imposed on conduct the people deem

> reprehensible.

>

> For example, in most places it is a criminal offense to dump toxic waste

> into a communities water supply; in those places where it is not

> specifically forbidden by law, no one can imagine anyone doing such a

cruel> thing.

>

> I invite serious students of this issue to peruse the archives of a list I

> moderate on corporate ethics; the reference is corp-ethics at

www.egroups.com

>

> These archives contain references to and abstracts of serious studies of

> corporate behavior and studies of regulation.

>

> Cheers,

>

> Michael Pierce McKeever, Sr.

January 11/2001/POLITALK: Politalk discussion

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Tim Erickson" <>

Subject: Re: Politalk Discussion

Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 01:25:36 -0800

Dear Tim, personally I have enjoyed the discussion so far even though I

believe most people stay a little at the perisphery of the topic and in

opposite camps without pointing one to the other a working alternative or

comments to the point. The ones in the economic camp just repeated textbook

theory and the once in the social camp, as I did not see many in the

environment camp, just repeated anti-market rethoric, but everybody agreed

that economic globalization is here to stay. I play my self in the middle

because it appear that I was the only one looking at economic globalization

from the sustainability point of view.

I was willing to extend my points a little more, actually I wrote

several contributions and deleted it just before sending them because I

sensed it could be either too much or too abstract for most people. I think

I made the right choice in sending the contributions I sent because without

getting feedback you better wait for the next time. Once in ELAN just

before the Kyoto agreement I brought some ideas related to sustainable

development/sustainability/economic theory which were quickly laballed

Esoteric. Soon after the Kyoto agreement was made those ideas started to

make sense, and then nobody said anything. I like humbly to exchange ideas

and views, and that is exactly what we have done here.

I am satisfied with the content, even though many chose not to participate.

Thank you for inviting me.

If I asked questions to the group, I would make the following two to capture

the views of the opposing sides:

a) if globalization is here to stay, why not to frame it from the

sustainability point of view from the beginning?;

b) can sustainable globalization be achieved without the market or without

democracy?

My warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: "Tim Erickson"

To: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:25 PM

Subject: Politalk Discussion

 

> Lucio Munoz:

>

> Given your experience on this issue and discussion like ours, I am

> hoping that you might give me some private feedback on how success

> you feel that our discussion has been so far?

>

> I am also interested in any ideas you might have for a final question

> to all of the participants?

>

> Thanks very much for your very interesting contributions, I'm very

> glad that you took part in our discussion.

Janaury 12/2001/POLITALK: Evolving economic models

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Politalk-US1" <politalk-us1@egroups.com>

Subject: Evolving economic models

Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:19:38 -0800

Dear Friends, my final contribution will be based on what I perceive as the

evolution of economic theory as a result of the evolution of social and

environmental concerns which appear to be moving from none to the binding

stage.

The following stages can be described from my point of view:

Stage 1:

Traditional local economics, based on the notion of a

"CLEAN" invisible economic hand;

Stage 2:

Adjusted traditional local economics, based on the acceptance

that the invisible economic hand is not clean as indicated by social and

economic externalities which must be incorporated in decision-making. To me

this is the main message and the bases of "Sustainable Development" a la

Bruntland Commission in OUR COMMON FUTURE/1987. Since the economy can be

adjusted in different ways when combined with environmental and/or social

regulations, this can lead to many different types of models, including

local Eco-economic development models based on the partnership of capitalist

and environmentalist only.

Stage 3

Traditional global economics, to save the notion of the clean invisible

economic hand, to expand the limits to growth, to remove local perception of

negative externalities and local responsibilities; and to by pass the

incorporation of the adjustments recommended by the Bruntland Commission and

the need for partnerships, going global is a logical step;

Stage 4

Adjusted traditional global economics, as global warming, CO2 Policies,

global poverty, and global environmental degradation hit the global

political scene, another readjustment is very likely. Again, social and

environmental regulations at the global stage provide the material for

devising different types of models: the global Eco-economic model appears to

have the upper hand right now.

Stage 5

Sustainability, when we realize that regulation is not enough, that we

also need to add social and environmental incentives into the adjusted

traditional global economics, we may start approaching true sustainability.

Hopefully, it is not too late for humanity to make this move then.

Main lesson:

Globalization is not just about economics, but Economic Globalization

is. A sustainability approach to globalization from the beginning would be

according to me the best way to go, but nobody likes to make sacrifices when

there is a perception that still we can wait, sometimes even when that

perception is an illussion. Hence, if sustainability ever comes, it will

come during very hard times for humanity.

My warm greetings and thanks for inviting me to participate in this

discussion.

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, BC, Canada

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

January 16/2001/CAEE/Message: Terremoto en El Salvador

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Carlos Ramirez-Sosa" ,

"Emilio Mayorga" <,

"Central American Ecology & Environment" <caee@ocean.washington.edu>

Subject: Porque las colonia estaba ahi va a ser central en los dias de calma, parece

Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:38:04 -0800

Estimado Carlos y amigos, estas preguntas de quien es responsable van a

tomar un sitio central una ves la situacion empiesa a calmarse. El analysis

puede ser sencillo, cerro sin casas y cerro con casas. Asumiendo que el

cerro se iva a caer de todos modos bajo un terremoto de la misma magnitude,

la diferencia de dan~o humano y economico aparece por que las casas estan

ahi. Sin casas, la atencion de las prensa hubiara estado en los otros

lugares de el pais afectados. El hecho de que el projecto colinas/santa

tecla fue approvado y la gente compro las casas tiene implicaciones

politicas, sociales, y economicas propias.

Si el desastre pasa en un pais desarrollado todos los que propusieron y

aprobaron el project son responsbles y pueden ser llevados a la corte por

poner vidas humanas en peligro y/o por no prevenir projectos de alto riesgo,

especialmente si luego en la corte ellos no puede justificar la decision de

implementar el projecto cientificamente.

Me imagino que la atencion hoy va a ir especificamente a el projecto y a su

estudio de factibilidad y evaluacion de riesgo ambiental/eventos naturales.

En el caso de El Salvador, me imagino que instituciones internacionales

financiando ese projecto, si hubieron, tambien puede que sean responsables

ya que ellos tienen/deberian de tener formas independientes de monitorear

este tipo de projectos previo dar el financiamiento, or por lo menos para

justicarlo de su lado.

Si el proceso de busca de explicaciones se hace profesionalmente, sin

recelos personales o politicos, puede que este desastre siembre la semilla

para disenar un modelo de desarrollo mas responsable or por lo menos

claramente responsable para evitar/eliminar este tipo de projecto que de

seguro contribuyen a aumentar las consequencias sociales, economicas, y

ambientales provenientes de desastres naturales.

Dada la pendiente de esta colonizacion y el peso de las casas sobre esas

pendientes, es posible que el cerro se hubiara caido en tiempos de un buen

temporal tipo Mitch tambien ya que la colina esta casi deforestada

completamente especialmente en las laderas. Aparentemente, el potencial de

desastre estaba ahi, y con las casas y los duenos y negocios el potencial

for desastre humano y economico aparecio y se hizo evidente con este

terremoto, esta ves.

Es una lastima que se necesiten desastres de esta magnitud para recapacitar

y emprender cambios positivos. Espero que cambios positivos se pongan hoy

en marcha, y que aprendamos mucho de esto, especialmente en terminos de

urbanizacion, reforestacion, construccion, y provision de ayuda de

emergencia a todos los lugares afectados lo mas pronto posible en forma

equitativa.

Saludos;

Lucio

----------

Carlos escribio:

Resulta que tal urbanizacion fue opuesta por el alcalde,

> quien veto el plan, y por ;las cominidades aledan~as. La compan~ia llevo

> el caso a la Corte Suprema de Justicia de pais y por supuesto gano. La

> corte dio la luz verde y he aqui los resultados dos an~os despues. Quien

> es culpable: La Madre Naturaleza, la compan~ia costructora o la Corte?

>

> Bueno es hora de recuperar la serenidad, es espekunnante.

>

> Saludos,

> Carlos R. Ramirez-Sosa

> NYC

>

January 17/2001/Mensaje: Metodologia de vulnerabilidad

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: <b.arana>

Subject: Metodologia de vulnerabilidad

Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 13:14:17 -0800

Estimado Sr. Arana, lei lo disponible de esta metodologia enviada por

REDECO en su pagina WEB.

Me gustaria de ser posible tener acceso a los detalles de los indices y

su construccion.

Me fue dificil ver como ustedes separan los impactos posible de

TERREMOTOS O TEMPORALES o otros tipos de desastre; o como ustedes

conectan o separan un indice con el otro; o si su metodologia puede

combinar sub-indices para formular indices generales; o ver como el

proceso de prioratizacion esta conectado con las capacidades actuales de

responder a emergencias.

Con mucho gusto yo revisaria su metodologia y proveeria comentarios

positivos, especialmente si tienen copias duras para discusion que me

podrian enviar.

Yo he desarrollado un systema de indices el cual se podria ajustar a

algo en linea con lo que parece que ustedes estan haciendo o han hecho,

y estoy pensando aplicarlo para determinar indices locales, nacionales,

y regionales de vulnerabilidad.

Saludos;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, BC, Canada.

January 18/2001/CAEE/Message metodologia de vulnerabilidad

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Central American Ecology & Environment" <caee@ocean.washington.edu>

Subject: Fw: Metodologia de vulnerabilidad

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:07:28 -0800

Estimado Alexis y amigos, yo encontre interesante este projecto, y luego

visite la pagina web proporcionada. Yo envie los comentarios abajo y

espero tener la oportunidad de ver la metodologia y la construccion de

indicadores un poco mas de cerca.

La teoria de indicadores que yo escribi para modelar la sostenibilidad

de los indicadores de la Agenda 21 puede ser adaptado para determinar

vulnerabilidad usando informacion ya sea quantitative o qualitative o

ambas, yo estoy poniendo junto una metodologia con datos ficticios para

demostrar como se puede hacer en una forma parecida con lo de Agenda

21.. Me agrada ver que ya otros metodos estan en uso o preparacion por

alla.

Ojala tenga acceso a detalles de la metodologia de Honduras para ver si

hay espacio para mejoramiento.

Saludos;

Lucio

----- Original Message -----

From: Lucio Munoz

To: b.arana@cgiar.org

Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 1:14 PM

Subject: Metodologia de vulnerabilidad

 

Estimado Sr. Arana, lei lo disponible de esta metodologia enviada por

REDECO en su pagina WEB.

Me gustaria de ser posible tener acceso a los detalles de los indices y

su construccion.

Me fue dificil ver como ustedes separan los impactos posible de

TERREMOTOS O TEMPORALES o otros tipos de desastre; o como ustedes

conectan o separan un indice con el otro; o si su metodologia puede

combinar sub-indices para formular indices generales; o ver como el

proceso de prioratizacion esta conectado con las capacidades actuales de

responder a emergencias.

Con mucho gusto yo revisaria su metodologia y proveeria comentarios

positivos, especialmente si tienen copias duras para discusion que me

podrian enviar.

Yo he desarrollado un systema de indices el cual se podria ajustar a

algo en linea con lo que parece que ustedes estan haciendo o han hecho,

y estoy pensando aplicarlo para determinar indices locales, nacionales,

y regionales de vulnerabilidad.

Saludos;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, BC, Canada.

January 22/2001/CAEE/Terremoto en El Salvador

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Felix Aguilar, MD, MPH" <m>,

"Alexis Aguilar" <alexagu>,

"Central American Ecology & Environment" <caee@ocean.washington.edu>,

<afiguero@u>,

<luna10@eat>

Subject: Re:_Deforestacion_de_cerro__contribuyo_a_tragedia_:_NO_SOLO_DEFORESTACION?

Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 01:01:00 -0800

Estimados amigos, definitivamente que todos estamos ahorita interesados en

analysar el porque el dano economico y humano se concentro en las

Colinas/Santa Tecla, pero el analysis en LA PRENSA para mi es bien

simplistico y no muy serio en mi opinion.

Por ejemplo, si el nivel de deforestacion fuera el mismo, pero el cerro se

hubiera dejado baldio y un terremoto de la misma magnitud causa el

deslizamiento, el impacto humano y economic hubiera tendido a zero asumiendo

que nadie andaba de paseo en la colina disfrutando la cordillera de El

Balsamo en ese momento y no colonia. Bajo las mismas condiciones es

probable que un temporal tipo Mitch podria haber causado el mismo

deslizamiento con impactos humanos y economicos mimimos tambien. Un impacto

similar se hubiera obtenido si la colina hubiera estado completamente

forestada, y el mismo deslizamiento ocurre debido a terremoto o temporal.

Parece que el hecho de que se deforesto en una pendiente para construir

casas en forma concentrada es lo que contribuyo a el alto costo social y

economico, pero bajo las mismas condiciones, estos mismos costos podrian

haber sido causados por un temporal tipo mitch tambien.

La pregunta clave, especialmente si este desastre se quiere comparar con los

de Honduras, es porque las casas estaban en el camino de el desastre en el

primer lugar: por necesidad or por fuerzas de "el mercado" y esto esta

relacionado directa o indirectamente con la decision de dejar que estos

procesos se materializen a pesar de el alto riego en caso de eventos

naturales, y de aqui nacen las raices que determinan la magnitud social y

economica de eventos como terremotos y temporales.

En conclusion, no solo deforestacion contribuyo a el concentrado costo

humano y economico en las Colinas/Santa Tecla causado en este caso por un

terremoto en mi opinion. Hay que mantener esto en mente cuando se haga un

analysis detallado de la situacion para poder actuar hoy y en un futuro,

especialmente si miramos el problema desde un angulo especifico(en este caso

parece ecologista solamente). En mi opinion, hay que mirar a lo que paso en

forma sistematica para prevenir or minimizar en forma sistematica.

Basado en lo anterior, se podrian identificar similaridades y diferencias

entre el caso en El Salvador y el caso en Honduras, que podrian resultar

muy importantes luego.

Mis mas cordiales saludos;

Lucio

----- Original Message -----

From: "Felix Aguilar, MD, MPH" <dscape.com>

To: <alexagui>; <caee@ocean.washington.edu>; <afiguero@u>;

<luna10@eanet>

Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 9:50 PM

Subject: Re: Deforestación de cerro contribuyó a tragedia

 

> Lo mismo paso en Honduras para el MItch

>

>

> Felix Aguilar, MD, MPH

>

January 22/2001/CAEE/Message: terremoto en El Salvador

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Jorge " <>

Subject: Re:_Deforestacion_de_cerro__contribuyo_a___tragedia_:_NO_SOLO_DEFORESTACION?

Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:20:39 -0800

Estimado Jorge, mis mas cordiales saludos. Estoy de acuerdo que seguramente

despues de un estudio detallado de las consecuencias de combinar causas

naturales y humanas, la mala utilizacion de tierras(mala/inefectiva

urbanizacion) va a estar alta entre las causas de la concentracion de danos

en zonas de peligro.

Este grado de peligro podria ser determinado basado en grado de

deforestacion, grado de pendiente, typo de suelos, concentracion de casas,

tipo de casas,....

Mis mas cordiales saludos Jorge.

Sinceramente;

Lucio

----- Original Message -----

From: "Jorge "

To: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 6:53 AM

Subject: Re: Deforestación de cerro contribuyó a tragedia : NO SOLO

DEFORESTACION

Lucio

En pocas semanas tendremos completo un analisis de todos los deslizamientos

ocurridos en El Salvador con este terremoto y se podra evaluar tecnicamente

la incidencia por deforestacion, pendientes etc, en el caso de

colinas,desde mi punto de vista si influyo la mala utilizacion del

territorio

saludos

Jorge

January 22/2001/POLITALK: Should we expect the process of globalization to remain unchanged when liberal policies in the USA change?

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Politalk-US1" <politalk-us1@egroups.com>,

"Politalk" <info@politalk.com>

Subject: Shoud we expect the process of globalization to remain unchanged when liberal policies in the USA change?

Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:48:42 -0800

Dear Friends, I just want to start this discussion reminding everybody that

we live in a constantly changing or dynamic world, and that we should not

remain static in our concepts or thoughts when political change takes places

within power houses, in this case the United States.

Are the liberal policies of the new administration in the USA similar to or

to be similar to the liberal policies of the past administration?. Are we

about to witness a world wide divide between the morality based liberal

policies that appeared to have been on the work since 1987 with the

Bruntland report and practicality based liberal policies apparently on our

way from the USA, a situation which apparently did not exist a few weeks

ago?.

Will the conflict between morality and practicality affect the existing

concepts of globalization mentioned by Tim and described as based on full

flexibility, full efficiency, deterritorialisation and borderless scenarios,

market segmentation, destruction of traditional cultures, homogenization,

universalisation, and flexible political change? Can diversity be the result

of the conflict between morality based and practicality based liberal

globalization?. I believe that all these issues should make us a little bit

aware that right now we may be at the start of a newly opened path toward

sustainability.

Therefore, while bringing our ideas beginning today, we should remember that

the nuture of globalization today, at least from the USA point of view,

right now may not be the same.

We should keep in mine that it will be the type of liberal policies that

persist over the long-run the ones who will define the nature and

structure(fairness, equity, shares, winners, losers....of the final outcome)

of globalization, and therefore, the degree of global sustainability.

Under restricted and excluding liberal policies, the moral basis of

globalization will tend to erode still more. In sustainability terms, the

sooner the clash between the proponents of morality based liberal

globalization(economic globalization subject to human and environmental

concerns) and practicality based liberal globalization(pure economic

globalization) takes place the better because it may then that it can be

established clearly in the real world that that true global liberal

sustainability may be a hybrid scenario based on the conjuctural interaction

of diversity, openness, and optimality, not on homogeneity, closedness, and

maximization. In theory, this appear to be the case.

These are my thoughts and your comments are welcome.

My warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: "Politalk" <info@politalk.com>

To: "Politalk-US1" <politalk-us1@egroups.com>

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 12:17 AM

Subject: [Pol-US1] Question

 

> I'm sorry for this initial flood of e-mail, but I'm trying to lay the

> groundwork for our discussion. After sending the quotes, it occurred

> to me that the discussion questions should have come last, so here

> they are again.

>

> (Nothing more from me today - I look forward to hearing from you).

>

> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

>

> 1) Do you believe that the process that we call globalization is

> changing the way that individuals identify themselves with groups or

> communities? Are we becoming more likely to identify with

> trans-national groups (religious, economic, consumer, or special

> interest) or has globalization intensified nationalistic tendencies

> and ties to local communities?

>

> 2) Do you believe that globalization (or is it americanization) is

> creating a global culture at the expense of local and national

> traditions? If so, is it a good thing, a bad thing, or is it mixed?

> Please explain......

>

January 26/2001/CAEE/Message: Related to El Salvador

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "alexagui" <au>,

"caee" <caee@ocean.washington.edu>,

"Felix Aguilar, MD, MPH" <m>

Subject: Re:_El_Salvador_bajo_la_amenaza_de_nuevos_derrumbes_y_mas_tragedias:_

las_opciones_construyen_un_dilema?

Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:50:32 -0800

Estimado Alexis y amigos. Estoy de acuerdo en lo que se menciona en

este articulo, el riesgo de contruir en las faldas de la cordillera de

el Balsamo a incrementado a tal forma que danos similares seran posibles

bajo accion sismica o de lluvias.

Esto implica que contemplar la posibilidad de permitir reconstruir o

reparar is contractoria ya que parece que hay un acuerdo en general que

el dan~o economico y social resulto en primer lugar parque las casas

estaban en un lugar donde no deberian de haber estado.

Por eso el hecho que el articulo ahorita este enfocado en soportar o no

una decision a corto plazo o no de reconstruir me parece extrano porque

no menciona las implicaciones economicas y sociales de esas decisiones.

Yo comprendo la situacion que el abandono de la colonia para reforestar

crearia, ya que implicaria la nececidad compensar a todos los duenos de

terrenos y casas, en pie or no y a las personas afectadas viviendo ahi

para que obtengan los recursos para relocarse, pero esto pueda que no

sea fisible o afordable para el gobierno en este momento.

Por el otro lado, permitir reconstruccion/reparacion implicaria tambien

la necesidad de proveer parcial or totalmente los recurson necerios para

eso, lo que convierte la situacion en un DILEMA ya que haciendo esto

implicaria poner a la colonia en el mismo sitio a un mas alto riesgo.

Por eso, prevencion parece que seria una opcion mas costo effectiva.

Todo lo anterior y el articulo no menciona nada de los factores humanos

que podria ser responsables y sus implicaciones legales.

Parece que se asume en el articulo, si no estoy equivocado, que si se

permite reconstruir/reparar o no, los afectados van a pagar de su propio

bolsillo. Lamentablemente, las limitaciones economicas pueden llevar a

una situacion en la cual cualquier decision que se tome puede complicar

las cosas en un future, incluyendo la decision de no hacer nada. Deseo

que todo salga bien.

Mis mas cordiales saludos;

Lucio

----- Original Message -----

From: alexagui=20

To: caee ; Felix Aguilar,

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 11:00 AM

Subject: El Salvador bajo la amenaza de nuevos derrumbes y m=E1s =

tragedias

http://www.laprensahn.com/caarc/0101/c26001.htm=20

January 27/2001/CAEE/Message related to El Salvador

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Joe Franke" <j.com>,

"alexagui" <a.edu>,

"caee" <caee@ocean.washington.edu>,

"Felix Aguilar, MD, MPH" <ape.com>

Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_El_Salvador_bajo_la_amenaza_de_nuevos_derrumbes_y_m=E1?=

=?iso-8859-1?Q?s_tragedias:_las_opciones_construyen_un_dilema?=

Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 21:21:41 -0800

Dear Joe, thanks for your comments.

I pointed out in several internet discussions since 1996 to now that

more attention should be put to deforested area based development as it

may have high positive social impacts coupled with economic and

environmental goals, aparently in most countries most people live in

deforested areas.

Sadly we have been slow into recognizing the social and environmental

links that could allow to improve both social and environmental goals at

the same time.

Such a disaster like this shows these links clearly in terms of the

value of alternative uses: the socio-economic value was deemed higher

than the environmental value so it was deforested. If the project would

have been in flat and safe land, it would have been apparently a wise

socio-economic decision, but the project was located in a steep and

apparently known unsafe area. Whether the risk factor was included

appropriately is another, but related issue.

However, I believe that until we clearly tie environmental goals to the

improvement of social goals an efficient move toward more deforested

area based development may not happen, specially if the complicated

Kyoto or global warming programs miss these linkages. In conclusion,

not only forested areas need protection, but protection takes away

present and future values/options to society, present and future, which

so far are not accounted for in protection programs.

Perhaps another way of dealing with disasters at least to create the

seed money for emergencies and preventions would be the creation of a

GLOBAL WARMING IMPACT MINIMIZATION FUND, which I had envisioned as a

part of a WORLD POVERTY FUND to pair both environmental and social goals

from now and on.

The views above are mine and I may be wrong so please express your

views.

Greeting;

Lucio

----- Original Message -----

From: Joe Franke=20

To: Lucio Munoz ; alexagui ; caee ; Felix Aguilar, MD, MPH=20

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 6:00 PM

Subject: Re: El Salvador bajo la amenaza de nuevos derrumbes y m=E1s

tragedias: las opciones construyen un dilema

This may sound terribly callous, given the immense suffering that has

occurred during the recent earthquake in El Salvador and the flooding,

mudslides and other miseries caused by hurricane Mitch. The question

should be asked, however, concerning how responsibility should be shared

in preventing future disasters caused, at least in part, by the lack of

political will to take deforestation and other ecological considerations

into account?

Are donor nations simply to stand by and wait for more such disasters,

while governmental officials in countries that are sure to suffer many

more such incidences do next to nothing?

Do any members of this list see mechanisms, both on the internal

political level, and on the part of European, and North American

disaster relief agencies, NGOs and governments, to encourage proactivity

on these matters?

Joe Franke

----- Original Message -----=20

From: Lucio Munoz=20

To: alexagui ; caee ; Felix Aguilar, MD, MPH=20

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 2:50 PM

Subject: Re: El Salvador bajo la amenaza de nuevos derrumbes y m=E1s

tragedias: las opciones construyen un dilema

Estimado Alexis y amigos. Estoy de acuerdo en lo que se menciona en

este articulo, el riesgo de contruir en las faldas de la cordillera de

el Balsamo a incrementado a tal forma que danos similares seran posibles

bajo accion sismica o de lluvias.

Esto implica que contemplar la posibilidad de permitir reconstruir o

reparar is contractoria ya que parece que hay un acuerdo en general que

el dan~o economico y social resulto en primer lugar parque las casas

estaban en un lugar donde no deberian de haber estado.

Por eso el hecho que el articulo ahorita este enfocado en soportar o

no una decision a corto plazo o no de reconstruir me parece extrano

porque no menciona las implicaciones economicas y sociales de esas

decisiones.

Yo comprendo la situacion que el abandono de la colonia para

reforestar crearia, ya que implicaria la nececidad compensar a todos los

duenos de terrenos y casas, en pie or no y a las personas afectadas

viviendo ahi para que obtengan los recursos para relocarse, pero esto

pueda que no sea fisible o afordable para el gobierno en este momento.

Por el otro lado, permitir reconstruccion/reparacion implicaria

tambien la necesidad de proveer parcial or totalmente los recurson

necerios para eso, lo que convierte la situacion en un DILEMA ya que

haciendo esto implicaria poner a la colonia en el mismo sitio a un mas

alto riesgo.

Por eso, prevencion parece que seria una opcion mas costo effectiva.

Todo lo anterior y el articulo no menciona nada de los factores humanos

que podria ser responsables y sus implicaciones legales.

Parece que se asume en el articulo, si no estoy equivocado, que si

se permite reconstruir/reparar o no, los afectados van a pagar de su

propio bolsillo. Lamentablemente, las limitaciones economicas pueden

llevar a una situacion en la cual cualquier decision que se tome puede

complicar las cosas en un future, incluyendo la decision de no hacer

nada. Deseo que todo salga bien.

Mis mas cordiales saludos;

Lucio

January 28/2001/ELAN: what to do if natural factors were to be blamed for global warming?

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>

To: "Julio Cesar Centeno" <>,

"ELAN LIST" <elan@csf.colorado.edu>

Subject: What to do if natural factors were to be blamed for global warming?

Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 17:14:36 -0800

Dear Friends, just a positive comment about this issue highlighted by

Dr. Centeno. The global warming issue boils down to whether or not

global temperatures are rising and if they are rising, then why they are

rising.

The drive is there to show once and for all, as I can see in this

article, that temperatures are rising, and once this is established the

next unavoidable question is why. In general additive thinking, there

are only two possibilities, natural causes or human causes.

The panel is now saying that human causes are the most important ones,

and so now it is hope that this will lead to sharing responsibilities,

determining remedial actions, implementing and monitoring those actions.

My question is, had the panel determined that natural factors were the

most important ones driving global warming, what its recommendations

would have been?. We can not affect most natural factors with today

technology to my knowledge, so do nothing?. And would have they ruled

then that it was fine to leave human activity unchecked given their

small contribution?. I wonder.

What do others think?

My warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, BC., Canada.

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: Julio Cesar Centeno

To: ELAN LIST=20

Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 3:10 PM

Subject: VIEW ON CLIMATE CHANGE

 

A BLEAK VIEW ON CLIMATE CHANGE

World Bank External Affairs Dept - Dev News

Jan 23 2001

The debate over global warming gained new intensity yesterday with the

release of an authoritative new report showing that global temperatures

are rising faster and higher than most experts feared only a short time

ago-faster, in fact, than at any time during the past 10,000 years according

to one climate scientist-reports the International Herald Tribune (p.1). The

report, issued at a conference on climate change in Shanghai, pictured a

world not too far in the future when tens of millions of people could be

forced from low-lying coastal areas, while others are driven from the land

because of searing temperatures and drought.

The results of new models persuaded the Intergovernmental Panel

on Climate Change (IPCC) to declare unequivocally for the first

time that mankind is responsible for global warming rather than

changes brought by the sun or other natural factors, adds the

Washington Post (p. A1). "We see changes in climate, we believe we

humans are involved, and we're projecting future climate changes much

more significant over the next 100 years than the last 100 years,"

said Robert T. Watson, an American scientist who is chairman of the

panel as well as chief scientist and director for environment at the

World Bank.

A leaked draft of the report was widely discussed during the

climate change talks in The Hague last year, notes the FT. In spite

of the sense of urgency, the talks failed because European

ministers rejected a proposed deal on the grounds that it made too

many concessions to the US. The European ministers hoped for a

better deal at the next meeting aimed at finalizing the Kyoto

Protocol for climate change, scheduled for later this year. But

during the US presidential election campaign, Republican George W. Bush

declared his hostility to the Protocol-although he signaled on another

occasion that he was prepared to accept the scientific evidence for

global warming.

Even though the report's conclusions are unlikely to convince all the

skeptics, its latest findings are likely to have a powerful influence

on the debate about global warming, the story says. If its sober

but alarming assessment cannot persuade governments to take action, it

is hard to imagine what will.

Commenting in an editorial, the FT (p.16) says even the

relatively modest measures now being proposed are proving unpopular.

Industries do not want to sacrifice their competitiveness and

consumers do not want higher fuel prices. The idea that a switch to

nuclear power may be needed to control carbon emissions is disliked

even more.

The world's political leaders must try to overcome these objections

when they resume their discussions in Bonn in May, says the

editorial. Progress may be slower than many European governments would

like, particularly after the switch to a Republican administration

in the US. Compromises will be needed but an international consensus

must be rebuilt. The uncertainties are great-but so are the dangers.

Writing in the IHT (p.8) meanwhile, Greenpeace International

Executive Director Thilo Bode says if automakers were genuinely

interested in protecting the environment, they would be doing many

things much differently. Why aren't they supporting the Kyoto

Protocol? Why are their industry associations still lobbying

against clean air regulations? Why aren't they working with

environmental groups to lobby for a better policy framework for

sustainable technologies?

January 29/2001/POLITALK: Reply to Vice Oshiro's comments

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Politalk-US1" <Politalk-US1@yahoogroups.com>,

"Tim Erickson" <>

Subject: Re: [Pol-US1] Reply to Vici Oshiro's comments

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 15:30:40 -0800

Dear friends, yes I agree and everybody, I think, in this discusion will

agree that international/global views(dominant views) can manipulate

local/nationalistic culture(dominated views), which is from the

sustainability point of view the essence of global systems based on

dominant/dominated interactions.

The same logic or theory underlines local

systems where the views of the rich or the few(dominant views) can

manipulate the views of the poor or the majority(dominated views).

Under local systems, rich and poor differential persisted, by choice or

imposition;and they should be expected to persist at the global level

for similar or parallel reasons.

My sustainability views suggest that given the mobility and organization of

those holding dominant views and the immobility and disorganization of those

holding dominated views, there will be a collusion of those holding dominant

views(leading to global homogeneity of the rich) to improve their standard

of living and a lack of collussion of those holding dominated views(leading

to local diversity) at least in the short-term and medium-term as we move

toward globalization.

However, if this is the case, in the long term, the struggle between local

diversity and the global elit may shake the system again toward local and

global equality fueled by a worsenning of social and environmental

conditions to a point of perhaps no return.

We all accept now that there were limits to growth when development was a

the local/country level and we should not forget that there are limits to

growth at the global level too, just we need to find out how far we can go

before diving into an earthly black hole.

These are my views, and I may be wrong so please make your views known.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

 

> - - - - - - - - - - -

> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Politalk-US1/message/128

> Vici Oshiro: Vici asks the following question in a message that I

> found in the archive, but never received in my e-mail in-box:

>

> Lucio Munoz writes about an international/global culture and a

> local/nationalistic culture.

>

> My fear is that the first can, will and has too often wrecked the

> latter. Is this the experience of those closer to the situation than

> I?

> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

January 29/2001/POLITALK: re: Lucio Munoz

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Politalk-US1" <Politalk-US1@yahoogroups.com>,

"Tim Erickson" <>

Subject: Re: [Pol-US1] Re: Lucio Munoz

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 15:33:58 -0800

Dear Tim, it is one thing to talk about how globalization is being

implemented and it is another thing to talk about how it should be

implemented. I tried to be careful in my posting to leave things flexible

for possible expansion. For example, I said if I am not mistaken,

international price and traditional markets.

Whether the international price is different than the traditional market

price from the rich point of view it does not make much different, it they

feel that it improves their standard of living the rich will pay for it,

locally or abroad. The poor even when international prices locally are

lower than those of local producers still may not be able to afford them.

So it is access/affordability that may fueled these two different cultures,

I may be wrong at the global level, but this appears to have happened at the

local level: those who can afford things live in a different world, not

necessarily better, but different.

Thank you for your comment. My reply to Vici's comments may give you more

information of what my thoughts are. Hope this clarify things.

.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Tim Erickson" <>

To: "Politalk-US1" <Politalk-US1@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 12:19 AM

Subject: [Pol-US1] Re: Lucio Munoz

 

> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

> Lucio, if I understand you correctly, you seem to imply that there is

> a higher "international" price that comes with globalization, and

> that poorer communities can stick with the cheaper, local economy and

> remain diverse.

>

January 29/2001/CAEE/Related to El Salvador

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Komar, Oliver" <>,

"'Alexis Aguilar'" <>,

"Central American Ecology & Environment" <caee@ocean.washington.edu>

Subject: Re:_Gobierno_salvadoreno_ejecuta_plan_para_disminuir_riesgos_tras_sismo?

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:04:17 -0800

Estimado Oliver, en este caso creo que el termino "damnificados"

significa "personas que sufrieron perdidas" materiales y/o humanas como

resultado de el terremoto. Si la cifra es appropiada y se le pudier

poner un valor por persona de perdida, se puede obtener un valor "bruto"

de las perdidas totales a nivel nacional por el terremoto.

Otra opinion diferente?

Saludos;

Lucio

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Komar, Oliver

To: 'Alexis Aguilar' ; Central American Ecology & Environment

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 1:05 PM

Subject: RE: Gobierno salvadoreno ejecuta plan para disminuir

riesgos tras sismo

 

Alexis, u otros miembros de la red:

Los ultimos informes mencionan mas de un million de damnificados

como resultado del terremoto. cual es su interpretacion de la

palabra "damnificandos"? Siempre entendo que significa personas que

quedaron sin hogar. Sera que hay una interpretacion menos grave, on

o hay realmente casi 20% de la poblacion salvadorena ahora sin casa?

Gracias por aclarar esta duda.

Atentamente,

Oliver Komar

-----Original Message-----

From: Alexis Aguilar [mailto:alexagui@ucla.edu]

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 11:52 AM

To: Central American Ecology & Environment

Subject: Gobierno salvadore=F1o ejecuta plan para disminuir riesgos =

tras sismo

 

 

 

http://www.laprensahn.com/caarc/0101/c29002.htm=20

January 29/2001/CAEE/related to El Salvador

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Carlos Ramirez-Sosa" <>

Cc: "Komar, Oliver" <>,

"'Alexis Aguilar'" <>,

"Central American Ecology & Environment" <caee@ocean.washington.edu>

Subject: Re:_Gobierno_salvadore=F1o_ejecuta_plan_para_disminuir_rie?=

=?iso-8859-1?Q?sgos_tras_sismo?=

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:51:12 -0800

Estimado Carlos, no entiendo tu pregunta. En mi mensaje yo puse " ...y se

le puede poner un valor por persona de perdida", lo que indica el tipo de

valor que me referi claramente. Y lo hice simplemente para resaltar el

grado de perdidas que podria ser asociado con ese numero de afectados y

indirectamente el grado de ayuda necesario para corregir las consequencias

si se conociera ese valor de perdida por persona. Cualquier tipo de

volorizacion que se considere apropiado podria dar una idea de eso. No fue

ni es mi intencion cuantificarlo.

Mis mas cordiales saludos;

Lucio

----- Original Message -----

From: "Carlos Ramirez-Sosa" <>

To: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Cc: "Komar, Oliver" <>; "'Alexis Aguilar'"

<>; "Central American Ecology & Environment"

<caee@ocean.washington.edu>

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 4:46 PM

Subject: Re: Gobierno salvadoreño ejecuta plan para disminuir riesgos tras

sismo

 

> Lucio:

>

> De que tipo de "valor" estas hablando??

>

> CRRS

January 30/2001/POLITALK: Re: Lucio Munoz

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Politalk-US1" <Politalk-US1@yahoogroups.com>,

"Tim Erickson" <>

Subject: Re: [Pol-US1] Re: Lucio Munoz

Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:38:19 -0800

Dear Tim, my appologies. I think it would be better if you keep your answer

short and to the point to avoid these types of confusion.

Right now I am not so sure what you have said.

Please, remember that are producers who do not use the "right price" and

therefore all consumers, all those who can afford that price do not pay the

full price. From this point of view is not the rich fault or the fault of

those who benefit from this situation, it is a market failure originated in

the supply side. The price gap(right price-actual price) equals roughly to

the value of social and environmental externalities that are not accounted

for. Therefore, getting the price right and paying the right price may be

an option available to the rich, but not to the poor unless we ensure

purchasing power parity or provide mechanisms to close that gap.

The insitutional setting to deal with price gaps or income gaps does not

exist right now,

several times I have suggested that an institution perhaps called the WORLD

POVERTY FUND could be attached

to globalization to work on that direction; and to deal with natural

emergencies, this could be pair with a GLOBAL WARMING IMPACT MITIGATION

FUND and program.

As you may know, the World Bank had two contradictory duties, the

erradication of poverty and the maximization of economic efficiency at

the national/local level and now it is bringing this contradiction to the

world level.

Breaking these two functions, given the poverty function to the World

Poverty Fund and leaving only the economic efficiency function to the bank

may be an efficient move. These would take care of the demand side. On the

supply side, we have the FAO ORGANIZATION, which is totally delinked as far

as I know from

the worldbank organization leading to a situation where efforts to

estabilize the global supply are not related or appear not to be related to

efforts to estabilize the demand side. This is to me a sustainability issue

that sooner or later has to be addressed.

Just this to keep it short. I will stay aside for a while to see other

views on the same issues and to continue with my reseach at home.

My warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Tim Erickson" <>

To: "Politalk-US1" <Politalk-US1@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 3:10 PM

Subject: Re: [Pol-US1] Re: Lucio Munoz

 

> >Tim in commenting on Lucio's post:

> >

> >"Isn't the situation, that the global elite pay less for their global

> >culture by passing the ecological and social costs along to poorer

> >communities who bare the burden of the process.

>

> Vici wrote:

> >Tim: Aren't you overlooking the many ways in which the poor are

> >subsidizing the rich - through low wages for instance?

>

> I don't think so, that was exactly the point that I was trying to

> make, although I might not have been clear.

>

> I think the confusion was in my poor use of the phrase "the rich have

> and will always have to subsidize the poor." What I should have said,

> is that in a healthy and sustainable economy, the wealthy will be

> billed for the social costs of producing the wealth that they

> possess. This bill comes either in higher prices for goods, ensuring

> that workers are adequately compensated for their work, or in taxes

> that are later used for social programs that, to some extent, offset

> the social costs of not paying the workers well.

>

> The biggest problem with our global economy, is that is does not

> provide for either of these mechanisms for paying the "real" costs of

> generating wealth.

February 3/2001/POLITALK: Drifting back to a pre-globalization world

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Politalk-US1" <Politalk-US1@yahoogroups.com>,

"J Cheung" <>

Subject: Re: [Pol-US1] Drifting Back to a Pre-Globalisation World

Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 14:09:48 -0800

Dear Friends, one of my previous postings was geared to point out some of

the differences between morally based globalization(the movement toward with

economic globalization subject to social and environmental concerns was

going all over the world), the pre-Bush's world; and practicality based

globalization(pure economic globalization, apparently Bush's world, but not

that of the rest of the world's world for now).

Morally based economic globalization should be exptected to thrieve toward

full opennes while keeping economic self-interest and maximization central,

but this does not guarantee winners or losers at the end, and this is the

reason why I think this option looks attractive one way or another to even

developing countries wishing to benefit for participating in opened

transactions.

On the other hand, practicality based economic globalization should be

expected to work better far away from full openess so it can ensure that

benefits of economic self-interest and maximization goes to the guarenteed

winners and away from the gruarantee losers.

Hence, theory suggest that the USA is going to move to a period of practical

policies internally and externally that ensure the right level of internal

and extenal closeness needed for practicality based globalization to have a

change to last for a while. As my previous posting indicates, it is the

clash between this movement toward closeness in the USA now and the movement

toward openess in the rest of the world now the one who will open the way to

a long-period of morality based globalization.

This may not be good news for those looking at linking social and

environmental issues to economic globalization to affect development in

specific parts of the world in a systematic fashion based on global

fairness, as this approach may only be implemented as of now when beside

violations to social and environmental rights, the party does not respect

the self-economic interest of the USA.

If the practically based globalization policies internally and externally in

the USA succeed in creating a more closed and estable country, especially

internally, then the move of the rest of the world toward global

openess may be slowdown. However, if those policies in the USA backfire, an

stronger world movement toward morality based globalization may appear.

From my point of view, the USA will somehow determine the path and speed

toward sustainability as technological closeness under catching up and

cooperative minds may not be an effective long-term defense estrategy,

specially that empirical evidence appear to suggest(and free trade theory

appears hold this to the heart) that open societies should do better than

conservative societies in general development terms and in social and

environmental equality.

A concerted global challenge based on a well organized partnership of social

and environmental movements may turn out to be a tougher adversary to

democratic conservative capitalism than social movements alone were in the

past. Compromise under these conditions may mean some form of morally based

democratic capitalism world wide.

I see Cheung's statement 'drifting back to a pre-globalization world" as

something that it is happening now in the USA and which from my point of

view is like " tying the wildhorse to ensure you do not lose it, and you can

police it better to increase the chances that you yourself get the benefits

from riding it".

Please, take my views, not as authoritory statements, but common sense

statements from my, I believe, independent side.

I would like to see the views of others on this same issues.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "J Cheung" <>

To: "Politalk-US1" <Politalk-US1@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 7:50 AM

Subject: [Pol-US1] Drifting Back to a Pre-Globalisation World

 

> Something struck me when comparing the Bush and the Clinton

administrations.

> Apparently the foreign policy of the former is drifting back to a

> pre-globalisation world, identifying China as the next world power to be

> isolated and regarded as competitor.

>

> The National Missile Defence system is thus necessary, and thus should be

> given a go ahead. Europe is to be drawn in closer as the ally. Next,

> Russia will be courted and pulled in.

>

> The post-cold war world involving globalisation is much too complex, too

> multi-faceted, and too difficult to predict.

>

> The cold war era is simpler for foreign policy planning. Don't you agree

?

>

> John Cheung

February 15/2001/message Reply to Mr. Ni Ni

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: <wrtc@.>,..,<bork@>,<tomcordaro@>

Subject: Discussion of interest I think

Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:55:23 -0800

Hello thanks for your message and for being in touch. I just recently

participated in two discussions on the topic: "economic globalization";

and "political and cultural globalization". I think the posting there may

be of interest for you and others.

You can check http://www.politack.com/

and click on: " political and cultural globalization "; and on "transcript

of recent discussion".

Let's polonaise still more in this evolving area.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: "Ni Ni" <wrtc@>

Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 11:13 AM

Subject: Please update my e-mail address and stay in touch with me

Dear Respected Colleagues around the world,

(whom I met virtually with in the Globalisation conference last year)

February 16/2001/LISTA THEOMAI: INFOTERRA: 2001 Environmental Sustainability Index Release

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: <listatheomai@unq.edu.ar>

Subject: Re: [listatheomai] INFOTERRA: 2001 Environmental Sustainability Index released {01}

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:31:17 -0800

Estimado Guido y amigos. Yo he producido una teoria systematica basada en

mis ideas de sostenibilidad verdadera(true sustainability) relacionada a la

produccion de indices generales y de subsistemas(general sustainability

index, social sostainability index, environmenal sustainability index, and

economic sustainability index) en forma consistente.

Este systema de "environmental sustainability index" descrito en este

mensaje abajo enviado por Guido parece trabajar en una forma bien

consistente con las ideas que en este articulo yo propongo y como yo

demostro se podria applicar usando el caso de la estructura de los

indicadores de agenda 21.

La desventaja que hay o yo veo en un index aislado como este es que no

se sabe que es lo que esta pasando en la parte social or en la parte

economica o en el systema en general al mismo tiempo(dentro de paises

especificos y entre paises/dentro de subsistemas specificos y entre

subsistemas). Mi teoria y metodo podria ayudar a solucionar este problema

de connectividad entre subsistemas y de medida de systema general o podria

tener otras applicaciones paralelas. Por favor revisar el borrador de este

articulo en mi pagina:

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz/ART8.htm

Mis mas cordiales saludos;

Sinceramente;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: "Guido Galafassi" <>

To: "listatheomai List Member" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 1:56 PM

Subject: [listatheomai] INFOTERRA: 2001 Environmental Sustainability Index

released {01}

Reenvio informacion de interes.

Guido Galafassi

><<

> 2001 Environmental Sustainability Index

> An Initiative of the Global Leaders for Tomorrow

> Environment Task Force, World Economic Forum

> January, 2001

>

> The Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) and this

> report are the result of collaboration among the World

> Economic Forum's Global Leaders for Tomorrow (GLT)

> Environment Task Force, the Yale Center for Environmental

> Law and Policy (YCELP), and the Columbia University Center

> for International Earth Science Information

> Network (CIESIN).

>

> The Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) is a measure

> of overall progress towards environmental sustainability

> developed for 122 countries. The three highest ranking

> countries in the 2001 ESI are Finland, Norway, and Canada.

> The three lowest are Haiti, Saudi Arabia, and Burundi.

> Examples of countries scoring in the middle include Ghana

> and Honduras. A high ESI rank indicates that a country has

> achieved a higher level of environmental sustainability

> than most other countries; a low ESI rank signals that a

> country is facing substantial problems in achieving

> environmental sustaina-bility

> along multiple dimensions.

>

> The ESI scores are based upon a set of 22 core

> "in-dicators," each of which combines two to six vari-ables

> for a total of 67 underlying variables. The indicators and

> variables were chosen through care-ful review of the

> environmental literature and available data combined with

> extensive consultation and analysis. The ESI permits

> cross-national comparisons of en-vironmental progress in a

> systematic and quantitative fashion. It represents a first

> step towards a more analytically driven approach to

> environmental

> decision making. The ESI enables:

> . identification of issues where national envi-ronmental

> results are above or below expec-tations;

> . policy tracking to identify areas of success or failure;

> . benchmarking of environmental perfor-mance;

> . identification of "best practices"; and

> . investigation into interactions between envi-ronmental

> and economic performance.

>

> ESI 2001 Rank Country

> The top 10 countries (USA came as 11th)

>

> 1 Finland

> 2 Norway

> 3 Canada

> 4 Sweden

> 5 Switzerland

> 6 New Zealand

> 7 Australia

> 8 Austria

> 9 Iceland

> 10 Denmark

>

> Ranks of Nile Basin countries included in the 122 countries

> studied.

> 67 Egypt

> 81 Uganda

> 82 Kenya

> 94 Tanzania

> 107 Sudan

> 115 Rwanda

> 119 Ethiopia

> 120 Burundi

>

February 20/2001/REDES/Invitation to cooperate

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: <redes@netmye.net>

Subject: Re: REDES

Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:11:05 -0800

Estimado Alejandro, sera un placer cooperar y compartir ideas con los

miembros de REDES. Por favor, subscribirme.

Saludos;

Lucio

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: "Alejandro Imbach" <redes@netmye.net>

To: <sikione@yahoo.com>

Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 1:01 PM

Subject: REDES

> Estimados amigos,

>

> Este mensaje tiene por objetivo anunciarles el establecimiento de la Red

> de Evaluación de Sostenibilidad (REDES) y de invitarlos a integrarse a

> la misma.

>

> La finalidad de la Red es ligar a las organizaciones y personas de todo

> el mundo que de una u otra manera se relacionan con actividades de

> monitoreo y evaluación en procesos de conservación y desarrollo

> sostenible. La Red enlaza no sólo a las personas que trabajan

> directamente en actividades de monitoreo y evaluación, sino también a

> aquellas que gerencian o coordinan organizaciones y proyectos en los que

> se realizan dichas tareas, y a aquellas que trabajan en procesos de

> capacitación y formación de recursos humanos en este campo.

>

> El espectro temático de la Red es amplio e incluye no solamente a la

> evaluación de sostenibilidad, sino también al monitoreo y autoevaluación

> de proyectos y de organizaciones que trabajan en conservación y

> desarrollo sostenible. Temas como evaluación de ecosistemas, evaluación

> de impactos y otros similares también son considerados por la Red.

>

> La membresía a la Red es gratuita, sólo deben contestar este mensaje

> para ser miembros de REDES. Los miembros recibirán mensajes semanales

> por correo electrónico, tendrán acceso al sitio de la Red en Internet y

> acceso al sitio ftp para obtener copias electrónicas de documentos

> relacionados con el tema.

>

> Si tiene interés en inscribirse en la Red, por favor responda a este

> mensaje y lo incluiremos en la lista inmediatamente. Si quiere más

> información por favor responda a este mensaje enviándonos sus preguntas.

>

> Un saludo cordial.

> Alejandro C.Imbach

> Coordinador REDES