Cricket World Cup begins in a few weeks and I have no idea how I will watch it. The rights to televise in the
After a mild December and January, winter has returned with a vengeance. The only positive about staying home is that I have not had to deal with the freezing temperatures. I am not a cold weather person at all.
I was watching a programme about
This dilemma is similar to a multitude faced in so many parts of the world, both developing and developed- “development” versus environmental protection. While I am very much the environmentalist and will always argue in favour of protection and against exploitation by multinational companies whose sole purpose is profit, I am also a realist. A number of the areas targeted by these huge companies with profits that are times larger than the GDP of many developing countries, suffer from abject poverty. In some instances, the case against allowing the multinational company to enter the area is compelling, especially when the local population is also in opposition. Here, I believe that a resounding no should greet the multinational. In other situations, I believe there is room for legitimate compromise (the diplomat in me) and sustainable exploitation of the natural resources. Obviously, it is never in the interests of the multinational to do this as their aim is absolute profit. However, strong pressure from both civil society and government can allow for operation in an environment of profit while still maintaining the integrity (natural, cultural, social, and religious) of the area and indeed leading to socio-economic advancement of the indigenous people.
The simple solution to the Peruvian problem would be to allow the bridge to operate (it has been built despite the court ruling ordering a halt in construction and will be inaugurated this month) but to limit the numbers of tourists visiting