The BBC can be funny sometimes, though not very funny. The title of one of their articles runs "Is Zuma's sex life a private matter?" and they promptly answer it in the negative by writing about it. Perhaps the author would have been wiser to ask about the president's attitude towards women and equality, since they have taken the liberty of asking about his sex life. But even an organisation as well (publicly) funded as the BBC often can't resist asking the same questions as almost every other journalist in the mainstream media.
The media needs to get past the connection between HIV and sex. True, HIV is mainly transmitted sexually. But rates of HIV transmission depend on many other things, such as the relative economic circumstances of the people involved, their relative levels of power in relationships (whether ephemeral or otherwise), their levels of education and access to information, their levels of health and nutrition and the like. Indeed, the nature and accuracy of the information to which people have access may also be significant; exalted claims about the role of the media in HIV publicity campaigns certainly suggest this.
Studies have shown that there is no strong correlation between rates of HIV in different countries and levels of what is considered to be unsafe sexual behaviour, for example, multiple concurrent partnerships. In other words, some places where rates of multiple concurrent partnerships are low, HIV rates are high and vice versa. High rates of HIV transmission in South Africa are, to the extent that they are well understood, explained by many things other than sexual behaviour.
If the BBC is really concerned about HIV transmission, it shouldn't be beyond the capacity of the corporation to research the subject a bit better than the average tabloid newspaper. They could even have discussed the fact that Zuma didn't use a condom during his extra-marital relationship and is well known for being against the use of condoms. Sadly, there is very little to HIV prevention in South Africa, or any other developing country, aside from condoms.
It may never become a popular view that HIV has numerous transmission routes and that many of the circumstances in which people live and work determine whether they will be infected with HIV and whether they will go on to infect others. HIV will probably always be viewed as such an extraordinary disease that it is transmitted in isolation from people's overall health and welfare, and that issues such as gender, power and politics are completely irrelevant. But it seems unlikely that the BBC will stick its neck out and adopt an unpopular view.
Showing posts with label hydroelectric power. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hydroelectric power. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
When Water is Scarce, Develop Hydroelectric Power Installations
It hardly comes as a surprise, but electricity prices in Kenya are increasing because of unreliable rainfall patterns. Unwisely, Kenya depends to a large extent on hydroelectric power. So when there is a prolonged drought power is in short supply. Expensive, inefficient and highly polluting emergency power is generated using fossil fuels to make up some of the shortfall.
Hydroelectric dams have been built in developing countries for many decades. This may have seemed like a good idea a long time ago, although it is more likely to have appealed to the Western engineering companies and others who reaped substantial profits from the building of these installations. But the multiple disadvantages of hydroelectric power are now widely recognized, disadvantages including inefficiency, expense and irreversible environmental damage.
For the moment, I'll leave aside the (albeit important) question of who is profiting from the production of emergency power over such a long period of time, which makes it seem less of an emergency and more like plain stupidity. But the cost increases for electricity, said to be about 60% over the past six months, are being passed on to hard pressed consumers. This is particularly galling in a country where only a minority of households have an electricity supply.
Already, well over half of Kenya's power is, ostensibly, generated by hydroelectric installations. This suggests a surprising overdependence in a country that has several viable alternatives. But there are now plans to build a new dam in Coastal Province (where most of the country's hydroelectric power is produced) to provide domestic water supplies, irrigation and electricity. Tens of millions of dollars will be spent on something that is unlikely to work very well and will have serious adverse impacts. The money is coming from the Chinese government and, while water infrastructure is badly needed, another huge dam hardly seems like the best approach given the history of such projects in developing countries.
Kenya could produce enough electricity for all its citizens using sustainable and relatively cheap sources, such as wind, solar and geothermal. There are good reasons for keeping water supply and irrigation separate from electricity generation because hydroelectric power is not just inadvisable, it's also quite unnecessary in Kenya. Touting the project as being a solution to water shortages doesn't explain why such a large amount of money is being spent on it. We are not told what the Chinese government is getting in return. Oil and other natural resources, probably.
Hydroelectric dams have been built in developing countries for many decades. This may have seemed like a good idea a long time ago, although it is more likely to have appealed to the Western engineering companies and others who reaped substantial profits from the building of these installations. But the multiple disadvantages of hydroelectric power are now widely recognized, disadvantages including inefficiency, expense and irreversible environmental damage.
For the moment, I'll leave aside the (albeit important) question of who is profiting from the production of emergency power over such a long period of time, which makes it seem less of an emergency and more like plain stupidity. But the cost increases for electricity, said to be about 60% over the past six months, are being passed on to hard pressed consumers. This is particularly galling in a country where only a minority of households have an electricity supply.
Already, well over half of Kenya's power is, ostensibly, generated by hydroelectric installations. This suggests a surprising overdependence in a country that has several viable alternatives. But there are now plans to build a new dam in Coastal Province (where most of the country's hydroelectric power is produced) to provide domestic water supplies, irrigation and electricity. Tens of millions of dollars will be spent on something that is unlikely to work very well and will have serious adverse impacts. The money is coming from the Chinese government and, while water infrastructure is badly needed, another huge dam hardly seems like the best approach given the history of such projects in developing countries.
Kenya could produce enough electricity for all its citizens using sustainable and relatively cheap sources, such as wind, solar and geothermal. There are good reasons for keeping water supply and irrigation separate from electricity generation because hydroelectric power is not just inadvisable, it's also quite unnecessary in Kenya. Touting the project as being a solution to water shortages doesn't explain why such a large amount of money is being spent on it. We are not told what the Chinese government is getting in return. Oil and other natural resources, probably.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
How Much Can We Steal From Africa and Call it Aid?
HIV/Aids, TB and Malaria, sometimes called the 'big three' diseases, receive amounts of money way out of proportion to the number of people affected by them. Neglected tropical diseases (NTD) affect more than 500 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa; that's more than half the entire population of the African continent.
But the thing about the big three is that they require a lot of research, a lot of money and a lot of work just to reduce the massive burden they represent. Whereas, NTDs are mostly caused by parasites and can be prevented and treated easily and cheaply. It is estimated that $200-400 million a year over five years could reduce NTDs significantly.
You think a few billion dollars is a lot of money? Well the determinants of all these NTDs, along with TB, malaria and, to some extent, HIV/Aids are environmental. They relate to people's physical environments, especially water, sanitation, food and food security, housing, air quality, etc.
Compare this few billion dollars to the plans to invest around $80 billion in hydroelectric power in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Investors will only be interested in this project if some of the electricity generated will go to Europe. What a surprise. And some of the money going into this project will be aid money. Some will be public money from other sources but the 'private' money involved will only be available, you can be sure, if it is guaranteed to make a return.
Bear in mind also a $400 billion scheme to supply solar electricity to Europe, generated in African countries. And the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of oil, gas and other natural resources extracted from other African countries every year. The amount needed to reduce NTDs and even the 'big three' is puny in comparison.
Ironic as it may seem, many of the NTDs are caused by parasites that thrive in hydroelectric dams; these are ecological disasters and this has been recognised for decades. For how long can we pretend that these expensive projects are for the benefit of Africans when they clearly are not? And for how long can we refuse to attend to programmes that could benefit the whole continent of Africa?
Good water and sanitation, food security and other basic benefits are the way forward for development, not the continued extraction of the continent's wealth at the expense of its people.
But the thing about the big three is that they require a lot of research, a lot of money and a lot of work just to reduce the massive burden they represent. Whereas, NTDs are mostly caused by parasites and can be prevented and treated easily and cheaply. It is estimated that $200-400 million a year over five years could reduce NTDs significantly.
You think a few billion dollars is a lot of money? Well the determinants of all these NTDs, along with TB, malaria and, to some extent, HIV/Aids are environmental. They relate to people's physical environments, especially water, sanitation, food and food security, housing, air quality, etc.
Compare this few billion dollars to the plans to invest around $80 billion in hydroelectric power in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Investors will only be interested in this project if some of the electricity generated will go to Europe. What a surprise. And some of the money going into this project will be aid money. Some will be public money from other sources but the 'private' money involved will only be available, you can be sure, if it is guaranteed to make a return.
Bear in mind also a $400 billion scheme to supply solar electricity to Europe, generated in African countries. And the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of oil, gas and other natural resources extracted from other African countries every year. The amount needed to reduce NTDs and even the 'big three' is puny in comparison.
Ironic as it may seem, many of the NTDs are caused by parasites that thrive in hydroelectric dams; these are ecological disasters and this has been recognised for decades. For how long can we pretend that these expensive projects are for the benefit of Africans when they clearly are not? And for how long can we refuse to attend to programmes that could benefit the whole continent of Africa?
Good water and sanitation, food security and other basic benefits are the way forward for development, not the continued extraction of the continent's wealth at the expense of its people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
