PAGE 4, Thursday, November 3, 2016
THE TRIBUNE
The Tribune Limited NULLIUS ADDICTUS JURARE IN VERBA MAGISTRI “Being Bound to Swear to The Dogmas of No Master”
LEON E. H. DUPUCH,
Publisher/Editor 1903-1914
SIR ETIENNE DUPUCH,
Kt., O.B.E., K.M., K.C.S.G., (Hon.) LL.D., D.Litt .
Publisher/Editor 1919-1972 Contributing Editor 1972-1991
EILEEN DUPUCH CARRON,
C.M.G., M.S., B.A., LL.B. Publisher/Editor 1972-
Published daily Monday to Friday
Shirley & Deveaux Streets, Nassau, Bahamas N3207 TELEPHONES
News & General Information Advertising Manager Circulation Department Nassau fax Freeport, Grand Bahama Freeport fax
(242) 322-1986 (242) 502-2394 (242) 502-2386 (242) 328-2398 (242)-352-6608 (242) 352-9348
WEBSITE, TWITTER & FACEBOOK www.tribune242.com
@tribune242
tribune news network
Risk experts: Candidates not focusing on biggest threats WASHINGTON (AP) — It’s a scary world out there, risk experts agree, but they say Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton often focus on the wrong dangers — fixing on hazards that are unlikely, or unlikely to cause massive pain. The Associated Press asked 21 risk experts to analyse the presidential campaign and list what they consider the five biggest threats to the world. Climate change topped the list with 17 mentions, often as the top threat. It was followed by use of nuclear weapons, pandemics, cyberattacks and problems with high technology. Neither Trump’s signature issues of immigration and terrorism nor Clinton’s major concerns, financial insecurity and gun violence, made the list. “I have not heard or read about any significant deliberations of the major risks that face our country today and tomorrow. Sad for the U.S.,” said Bob Bea, a University of California Berkeley engineering professor who is a long-time expert in human-caused disasters. Nuclear weapons could be one exception. The issue is not ignored, though the candidates come at it from opposite directions. Trump has suggested that Japan and South Korea should be free to develop their own nuclear weapons programmes to counter North Korea, while Clinton says Trump is too unstable to be trusted with his own finger on the figurative nuclear button. Economics and psychology professor George Loewenstein, co-director for the Center for Behavioral Decision Research at Carnegie Mellon University, was typical of the experts. He called climate change “a problem that threatens the very existence of the human race” and is already having devastating consequences around the world. He fretted that it has been barely mentioned in presidential debates, usually in context of Trump’s questioning that it is happening. But it’s not just climate change, which Clinton does touch on in her speeches. The political campaigns often miss the real potential risks while exaggerating others, especially immigration and terrorism, the experts said. Extreme weather has killed more than twice as many people in the United States in the past 15 years as terrorist attacks, even including Sept. 11, 2001. Fourteen of the 21 experts responded when asked to rate Clinton and Trump on handling risk. They gave Trump an average of an F and Clinton a C-plus. Seth Baum, executive director of Global Catastrophic Risk Institute, said in general it seems Clinton “appears to be assessing risks based on more careful analysis, whereas Trump appears to rely more on intuition.” Studies show that careful analysis does better than intuition, he said. The results of the small AP survey are similar to those of a larger survey of 750 experts conducted this year by the World Economic Forum with the help from the National University of Singapore, the University of Oxford and the University of Pennsylvania. The Global Risks Report 2016 found the five biggest global risks in terms of impact were: failure to deal with climate change, weapons of mass destruction, water crises, large-scale involuntary migration, and severe energy price shocks. It said the five big risks that are most likely are large-scale involuntary migra-
tion, extreme weather disasters, failure to deal with climate change, regional wars and major natural catastrophes. Experts said sometimes people get risk wrong because they worry more about things they can’t control. People fear flying in planes, which is safer than driving on a highway, because they lack control, said Miguel Centeno, founder of the Research Community on Global Systemic Risk at Princeton University. “Trump is appealing to the general fear people have that that they don’t control their lives or futures,” said risk perception consultant David Ropeik, author of the books “How Risky Is It Really?” and “Risk.” “We direct that fear at immigrants or terrorists or political insiders who don’t give a damn about anybody but themselves.” Some said the threats from immigration, terrorism and crime that Trump talks about are overblown. However, Ropeik said, “these rinks trigger much stronger emotional responses from the public since they feel like risks that just might happen to any one of us.” But risks that experts highlight, such as climate change or growing resistance to antibiotics, “are abstract, intellectual,” Ropeik said. “They don’t feel like something that could happen to us soon. So those aren’t being talked about as much.” Between 2006 and 2015, 117 people in the United States died from terror attacks, according to the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses To Terrorism , while 1,130 people died from extreme heat, according to the National Weather Service. When Sept. 11, 2001, is included, 3,124 people have died in the United States from terrorism in the past 15 years, but 8,635 died from extreme weather such as heat, hurricanes, lightning, tornadoes and floods, according to the weather service. While many experts worried about cybersecurity and hacking or cyberterrorism, other concerns about technology also surfaced. Carnegie Mellon’s Loewenstein said he worries about changes in the economy from the rise of artificial intelligence and robots, such as self-driving cars. He said if the trend continues it will worsen inequality and increase the marginalisation of those with limited education and skills. He said this risk “is probably too subtle as well as controversial” to make it into presidential debates. Jennifer Kuzma, co-director of the Genetic Engineering Society Center at North Carolina State University and secretary of the Society for Risk Analysis, said she worries about misuse of emerging nanotechnology, biotechnology and neuro technology “for nefarious purposes.” But it’s the disruption in crucial technology and the global trade that goes with it that worries Centeno of Princeton. If a good chunk of the world loses its electronic and internet connectivity, the results could be crippling, he said. “Nobody ever talks about this,” Centeno said. Technology has so changed our lives that “we’ve created a machine that we cannot live without.” His advice: “Be afraid. Be very afraid. But you’ve got to live.” This article is by Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press
WHOSE POTENTIALLY DISASTROUS IDEA IS THIS? EDITOR, The Tribune. No! No! No! The fisheries industry provides one of the Bahamas’ few natural resources and the government must not sell our birthright to satisfy China’s voracious appetite for seafood. China is currently flexing its military muscle in the South China Sea, bullying fishermen from other countries with competing territorial claims out of their very livelihood. The fisheries industry in the South China Sea is
in danger of collapsing because of over fishing with some areas having less than one tenth of the stocks available five decades ago! Tuna and grouper are a luxury. Who came up with this potentially disastrous idea and who will actually benefit? Gee, I wonder. On what basis should the Bahamas lease 10,000 acres of Crown Land to the Chinese for agriculture purposes? Who will oversee such a programme to make sure the runoff from toxic fertilizers doesn’t pollute the valuable fishing grounds off
Andros? We already have the Baha Mar catastrophe on Cable Beach. The old British Colonial Hotel, an architectural treasure, no longer stands as a charming gateway to downtown Nassau, but has been blanketed by an ugly parking lot to the west. How much more of our sovereignty does this government propose to give away? ATHENA DAMIANOS Nassau, November 1, 2016
Beware the Trojan horse EDITOR, The Tribune. ‘MANY eons ago, Troy, an island state of fabled fame, with an abundance of skilled and battle harden warriors, complete with an impregnable barrier wall, was overcome when the inhabitants pulled a huge wooden horse into the capital city. It was a beautiful and a magnificent creation that entranced the residents and was considered a favourable omen from ‘the gods’. The wooden horse was filled to capacity with Greek soldiers who, once night would have descended on the city state, rappelled down from the hallowed interior of the horse and sacked the same while inflicting massive human and material damage. From then to now, people all over the world and throughout history have adopted the adage: ‘Beware the Trojan horse’. Simply put, this means that one must always be aware of the ‘enemy’ within. It is no different today in our wonderful nation. The Trojan horse is now outside our collective gates and is poised, if we succumb, to be pulled within our midst by over zealous fellow citizens who might be dazed or enchanted by the beautiful wooden horse. As a trained lawyer with extensive criminal and constitutional law experience, I have always been of the firm legal view that Sarkis, et al, was shafted by the Gold Rush Administration, relative to the Baha Mar saga. I am PLP to my very core, but the man was wronged, big time. Having said this, however, it must also be clearly understood that the legal maxim: “He who comes to equity must come with clean hands” still applies. It has been alleged that Sarkis, even while negotiating with the PM, in supposedly good faith, he and his legal eagles were preparing to file assorted petitions in Delaware over in the USA, without
LETTERS letters@tribunemedia.net
prior or any notice to Mr Christie! This, I submit, does not qualify Sarkis for the invocation of any sort of equitable relief herein. His best bet, in my considered view, is to file an application right here in The Bahamas for compensation on a quantum meruit basis, against all relevant parties, inclusive of the government. How more simple can it get? It is useless and possibility treasonous, for a foreign investor, with residency status, to even contemplate a politically disguised coup d’etat via a thinly veiled Trojan horse, to overthrow or compromise a Bahamian government. The FNM appears to be in his camp and has now approved and ratified several candidates who are known to be associated with him and his business ventures. Is it conceivable that he, et al, will fund the campaigns of these apparent Trojan horses? Is it possible that the economic crumbs will fall, conveniently, into the lap of this political entity? The PLP is a flawed party. It has made many mistakes and missteps over this term but at least we tried. Failure, my beloved, is all a part of the process of life. When one falls in life it is not so important that one fell. What is important is that one gets back up and presses on with the never ending battle. So it must be with the PLP. On a personal level I am happy to see some of the candidates being rolled out by the two major parties. Most of them are still youthful and have accumulated much experience in the various professions; the business world and other fields of endeavours. Whoever is elected from
the mix will, I am certain, bring something new to the parliamentary and national tables. There are some other candidates, however, who are not known to have been politically motivated or even to have vocalized any minute desire to serve the unwashed masses hitherto. I do not state this to merely suggest that they might have an ulterior agenda, but you ask yourself the questions which you might, no doubt, wish to ask me. The answers are so clear-cut and salient that no explanation is needed. The Trojan horses, along with at least one mule, are at our electoral gates. If we let them in what will be the consequences and where will their equine loyalties lie? It is not desirable, in my opinion, for any foreign investor/resident to inject him or herself into our local politics in an overt manner. Yes, all parties and most individuals who are seeking to retain or to be first elected to office will approach or be approached to secure funding from whatever sources. That, sadly, in the absence of campaign finance laws and regulations, is how it is. Sarkis , seemingly, is being badly advised. It is yet another Bahamian adage that: “There is more than one way to skin a cat”. It is time, I suggest, that someone in his orbit tell him this in all seriousness. The PLP is being handed an electoral bone that we will run with while gnawing on the same. The PLP knows a Trojan horse and, certainly, an Inagua jack ass when we see one. It does not, however, matter, who comes up against the Gold Rush 3.0 in 2017. We did it before and we will do it again. To God then, in all things, be the glory. ORTLAND H. BODIE JR. Nassau, October 29, 2016.