Debate of separating retail banking from investment banking 02051 Essay

Debate of separating retail banking from investment banking 02051 - Essay Example The concept was highlighted for the first time in Liikanen report where the structural reform was proposed for banks within the European Union (Vickers, 2013). Arguments in favour of structuralism suggest that risk level is very low in retail banking and these facilities are essential while investment banking is inessential and also relatively risky in terms of transaction. Further arguments point that the separation will ensure that public safety is retained by means of low risk and essential activities while market forces freely regulate risk taking activities in investment banking (Vickers, 2013). However, things are not as simple as these arguments because retail banking is equally risky for it is prone to credit risk due to lending activities. A number of authors argued that mere separation will not protect the banking sector from risk externalities (Peston, 2011; Halligan, 2014). Consequently, the paper evaluates the current situation in this regard, effectiveness and consequences of the separation of banking sector on consumers and the economic system. The proposal of banking separation is result of financial crisis and reckless risk appetite of banking and consequently, it is imperative to briefly discuss the crisis and its impact which led to the ongoing situation. According to Wehinger (2013), players of private sector noted that profound improvements have been undertaken in the asset management industry and banking sector in terms of risk management as a result of the crisis. Post crisis, significant planned changes have been brought in European banks while structural changes in business models have been brought in by various global banks. Several regulatory rules have been proposed for improving effectiveness of risk capital model and treat the issue of capital scarcity with utmost sincerity. It has already been mentioned that commercial banking is not devoid of flaws and risks and consequently, it was established that commercial and

Huntingtons Disease Essay example -- Disease/Disorders

Huntington’s disease is a degenerative neurological disorder affecting movement, cognition, and emotional state (Schoenstadt). There are two forms of Huntington’s disease (Sheth). The most common is adult-onset Huntington’s disease, with persons usually developing symptoms in their middle 30s and 40s (Sheth). There is an early onset form of Huntington’s disease, beginning in childhood or adolescence, and makes up a small percentage of the Huntington’s population (Sheth). Huntington’s disease is a genetic disorder with a short history, a plethora of symptoms, and devastating consequences, with no current cure in sight. Cases of Huntington’s disease date back to the early seventeenth century, but those records are basic, with no convincing descriptions (Folstein). George Huntington’s paper was the best and first to describe Huntington’s disease, which was presented at a meeting of â€Å"Meigs and Mason Academy of Medicine at Middleport, Ohio, in 1872,† (Folstein). Shortly after 1900, papers on Huntington’s disease gradually began appearing in case reports and psychiatric literature (Folstein). In 1936, Huntington’s disease appeared twice in two different letters to an editor about eugenics, which is defined as â€Å"improving the species by regulating human reproduction,† (Bakalar). These letters named Huntington's disease as one of five diseases that should be considered for voluntary sterilization (Bakalar). In 1967, the first symposium devoted to Huntington’s disease was held inside of a larger conference on neurogenetics in 1967 (Folstein). By 1968, George Willem Bruyn had published the first complete review of all of the Huntington’s disease literature that had been published up until that point in time (Folstein). In normal circumstan... ...ml?res=9E06EFDF123FF93BA35751C1A96F9C8B63#> Folstein, Susan E. Huntington’s Disease. Baltimore: The John’s Hopkins University Press, 1989. Print. 3 April 2012. Genetic Science Learning Center. "Huntington's Disease." Learn. Genetics. Web. 23 March 2012. Miller, Marsha L. â€Å"HD Research – Past and Future.† Huntington’s Disease Society of America. 2011. Web. 23 March 2012. Schoenstadt, Arthur M.D. â€Å"Huntington’s Disease Statistics.† eMedTV. Last reviewed 30 November, 2006. Web. 25 April 2012. Sheth, Kevin. â€Å"Huntington’s disease.† PubMed Health. Last reviewed 30 April 2011. Web. 20 March 2012.

Rights and Freedoms of Aboriginal People over the Past Century

Rights and Freedoms of Aboriginal people over the past Century The rights and freedoms of Aboriginal Australians have changed tremendously over the past decade. The treatment given to the indigenous population of Australia has been an aggravating issue, ever since the white settlement in Australia. As a matter of protection, the Australian governments have implemented, rules, and policies such as, ‘the policy of protection’, assimilation, integration, paternalism, and self-determination, gradually taking away, and disempowering the Aboriginals, and their rights, and freedoms.Paternalism greatly affected individual Aboriginals. During the years of 1901 to 1914, many states and governments maintained similar attitudes and perspectives of the indigenous Australians. Predominantly, this perspective/attitude was based on the belief , that the Aboriginal population, were savages, uncivilised, and were regarded as much inferior or hold less mental capacity to determine what is best for them. This lead to paternalism. Paternalism is the meaning for ‘Fatherly’.This attitude led governments to take control over the Aboriginals, who are depicted to be unable to act for themselves. This act forced aboriginal people out of their traditional lands, the white Australians considered the need for agriculture land is much important for them rather than the Aboriginals. By extracting the Aboriginals from their lands and placing them on reserves, and providing them with adequate supplies of food, and other supplies, was thought as humane. The policy of Assimilation changed the freedom and rights of individual Aboriginal Australian.This policy fostered aboriginal people to change their, way of life, and adapt to the culture of ‘white people' the individual aboriginals were expected to absorb and adapt to the white culture. This policy was depicted to be ‘good’ for the indigenous population. The policy of Assimilation was difficult to enf orce, as aboriginal people retaliated, and fought for the rights, and for the preservation of their culture and identity. This lead to the ‘Stolen-generation’ which involved the forceful removal of aboriginal children from their lands, and family. The children were then dispatched into institutions, or were adopted by white families.As a result the policy of Assimilation continued. The policy of protection was linked to the act of paternalism, which had two intentions that is to preserve and protect the aboriginals, and to educate the existing population, on western culture. From the intention of protecting the indigenous population, the aboriginals faced racism, discrimination, and the deterioration of their way of life. For example under the policy aboriginals could be moved onto reserves at any time, they required permission from the government to marry a white person, they could not vote.During the past century, Aboriginal people were forced to accept protectionism. Practicing and following their culture and way of life was strictly prohibited, therefore this policy had a great negative impact upon the aboriginals. For many decades, The Aboriginal organisations have made amendments for the removal of discriminatory references to aboriginal people individuals in Australia. The federal council for the aboriginals launched a campaign for a referendum. These campaigns were established in all states of Australia. In 1967 (45years ago) a referendum was held.During the referendum, one of the two questions asked was whether the derogatory statements and references to aboriginal people should be removed. The referendum has regularly been seen as providing full citizenship to aboriginals. The referendum and the constitutional changes were not quickly enforced however, over time this referendum changed the lives of aboriginals and their participation to the nation. This referendum changed the lives of aboriginal Australians as they are able to participat e in mainstream events, and were able to sustain their way of life, and gained freedom.The rights and freedoms of the indigenous people continued to change as the policy of assimilation was changed into integration. Aboriginal people fought for the individual rights to participate and engage in activities in the mainstream society. Integration allowed aboriginal individuals, for the first time to, keep their way of life, culture, and customs. They were able to make personal decisions on how their life was meant to be. At the year 1965, the commonwealth conference on the aboriginal policy, changed the policy of assimilation to integration.Self-Determination is the fundamental right for a nation or a specific group of people to regulate all aspects of their lives such as, culture. This policy involved the indigenous people, to have complete right to navigate their basic needs and collective wants. This includes secure and private ownership of land, local community control of land, loc al community control of services, and community affairs. For Aboriginal communities, the ownership of a segment of land is vital approach for the achievement of self-determination.Self-determination is linked to many issues, such as the return of human remains and sacred material by museums, the recognition of customary law, access to culture and appropriate education, and culturally of appropriate housing communities. The establishment of Aboriginal owned organisations is an important step towards self-determination. In conclusion, it is evident that the Australian government practiced policies which restricted and controlled the rights and freedoms of the Aboriginal people.From the 1900’s, Policies such as, the policy of protection’, and, assimilation, had negative impact to the aboriginal way of life, and culture. However over the 1960’s policies such as, Integration, self-determination, and the constitutional referendum have brought aboriginals freedom, and rights. They are able to participate in mainstream events, regardless of their race, and were able to practice their way of live, and were able to preserve their cultural heritage. [email  protected] com By: Gokul (10W)

What Is the Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol was an amendment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty intended to bring countries together to reduce global warming and to cope with the effects of temperature increases that are unavoidable after 150 years of industrialization. The provisions of the Kyoto Protocol were legally binding on the ratifying nations and stronger than those of the UNFCCC.​ Countries that ratify the Kyoto Protocol agreed to reduce emissions of six greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs. The countries were allowed to use emissions trading to meet their obligations if they maintained or increased their greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions trading allowed nations that can easily meet their targets to sell credits to those that cannot. Lowering Emissions Worldwide The goal of the Kyoto Protocol was to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions to 5.2 percent below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. Compared to the emissions levels that would occur by 2010 without the Kyoto Protocol, however, this target actually represented a 29 percent cut. The Kyoto Protocol set specific emissions reduction targets for each industrialized nation but excluded developing countries. To meet their targets, most ratifying nations had to combine several strategies: place restrictions on their biggest pollutersmanage transportation to slow or reduce emissions from automobilesmake better use of renewable energy sources—such as solar power, wind power, and biodiesel—in place of fossil fuels Most of the world’s industrialized nations supported the Kyoto Protocol. One notable exception was the United States, which released more greenhouse gases than any other nation and accounts for more than 25 percent of those generated by humans worldwide. Australia also declined. Background The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997. It was opened for signature on March 16, 1998, and closed a year later. Under terms of the agreement, the Kyoto Protocol would not take effect until 90 days after it was ratified by at least 55 countries involved in the UNFCCC. Another condition was that ratifying countries had to represent at least 55 percent of the world’s total carbon dioxide emissions for 1990. The first condition was met on May 23, 2002, when Iceland became the 55th country to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. When Russia ratified the agreement in November 2004, the second condition was satisfied, and the Kyoto Protocol entered into force on February 16, 2005. As a U.S. presidential candidate, George W. Bush promised to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Shortly after he took office in 2001, however, President Bush withdrew U.S. support for the Kyoto Protocol and refused to submit it to Congress for ratification. An Alternate Plan Instead, Bush proposed a plan with incentives for U.S. businesses to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions 4.5 percent by 2010, which he claimed would equal taking 70 million cars off the road. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, however, the Bush plan actually would result in a 30 percent increase in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions over 1990 levels instead of the 7 percent reduction the treaty requires. That’s because the Bush plan measures the reduction against current emissions instead of the 1990 benchmark used by the Kyoto Protocol. While his decision dealt a serious blow to the possibility of U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol, Bush wasn’t alone in his opposition. Prior to negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution saying the U.S. should not sign any protocol that failed to include binding targets and timetables for both developing and industrialized nations or that would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.† In 2011, Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, but by the end of the first commitment period in 2012, a total of 191 countries had ratified the protocol. The scope of the Kyoto Protocol was extended by the Doha Agreement in 2012, but more importantly, the Paris Agreement was reached in 2015, bringing back Canada and the US in the international climate fight. Pros Advocates of the Kyoto Protocol claim that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is an essential step in slowing or reversing global warming and that immediate multinational collaboration is needed if the world is to have any serious hope of preventing devastating climate changes. Scientists agree that even a small increase in the average global temperature would lead to significant climate and  weather changes, and profoundly affect plant, animal, and human life on Earth. Warming Trend Many scientists estimate that by the year 2100 the average global temperature will increase by 1.4 degrees to 5.8 degrees Celsius (approximately 2.5 degrees to 10.5 degrees Fahrenheit). This increase represents a significant acceleration in global warming. For example, during the 20th century, the average global temperature increased only 0.6 degrees Celsius (slightly more than 1 degree Fahrenheit). This acceleration in the build-up of greenhouse gases and global warming is attributed to two key factors: the cumulative effect of 150 years of worldwide industrialization; andfactors such as overpopulation and deforestation combined with more factories, gas-powered vehicles, and machines worldwide. Action Needed Now Advocates of the Kyoto Protocol argue that taking action now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions could slow or reverse global warming, and prevent or mitigate many of the most severe problems associated with it. Many view the U.S. rejection of the treaty as irresponsible and accuse President Bush of pandering to the oil and gas industries. Because the United States accounts for so many of the world’s greenhouse gases and contributes so much to the problem of global warming, some experts have suggested that the Kyoto Protocol cannot succeed without U.S. participation. Cons Arguments against the Kyoto Protocol generally fall into three categories: it demands too much; it achieves too little, or it is unnecessary. In rejecting the Kyoto Protocol, which 178 other nations had accepted, President Bush claimed that the treaty requirements would harm the U.S. economy, leading to economic losses of $400 billion and costing 4.9 million jobs. Bush also objected to the exemption for developing nations. The president’s decision brought heavy criticism from U.S. allies and environmental groups in the U.S. and around the world. Kyoto Critics Speak Out Some critics, including a few scientists, are skeptical of the underlying science associated with global warming and say there is no real evidence that Earth’s  surface temperature  is rising due to human activity. For example, Russia’s Academy of Sciences called the Russian governments decision to approve the Kyoto Protocol purely political, and said that it had no scientific justification. Some opponents say the treaty doesn’t go far enough to reduce greenhouse gases, and many of those critics also question the effectiveness of practices such as planting forests to produce emissions trading credits that many nations are relying on to meet their targets. They argue that planting forests may increase carbon dioxide for the first 10 years owing to new forest growth patterns and the release of carbon dioxide from soil. Others believe that if industrialized nations reduce their need for fossil fuels, the cost of coal, oil and gas will go down, making them more affordable for developing nations. That would simply shift the source of the emissions without reducing them. Finally, some critics say the treaty focuses on greenhouse gases without addressing population growth and other issues that affect global warming, making the Kyoto Protocol an anti-industrial agenda rather than an effort to address global warming. One Russian economic policy advisor even compared the Kyoto Protocol to fascism. Where It Stands Despite the Bush Administration’s position on the Kyoto Protocol, grassroots support in the U.S. remains strong. By June 2005, 165 U.S. cities had voted to support the treaty after Seattle led a nationwide effort to build support, and environmental organizations continue to urge U.S. participation. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration continues to seek alternatives. The U.S. was a leader in forming the Asia-Pacific Partnership  for  Clean Development and Climate, an international agreement announced July 28, 2005 at a meeting of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). The United States, Australia, India, Japan,  South Korea, and the People’s Republic of China agreed to collaborate on strategies to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by the end of the 21st century. ASEAN nations account for 50 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, population, and GDP. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, which imposes mandatory targets, the new agreement allows countries to set their own emissions goals, but with no enforcement. At the announcement, Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said the new partnership would complement the Kyoto agreement: â€Å"I think climate change is a problem and I dont think Kyoto is going to fix it...I think weve got to do so much more than that.† Looking Ahead Whether you support U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol or oppose it, the status of the issue is unlikely to change soon. President Bush continues to oppose the treaty, and there is no strong political will in Congress to alter his position, although the U.S. Senate voted in 2005 to reverse its earlier prohibition against mandatory pollution limits. The Kyoto Protocol will go forward without U.S. involvement, and the Bush Administration will continue to seek less demanding alternatives. Whether they will prove to be more or less effective than the Kyoto Protocol is a question that won’t be answered until it may be too late to plot a new course. Edited by Frederic Beaudry