Day 3: A good climate for global regulation?

I have just come from a lively debate around the role that global corporations should play in trying to control climate change.  It has been no surprise to see the environment dominate every discussion group I have attended, so it was great to immerse myself in some in depth conversation about who is responsible for making the necessary changes to business practice.

Everyone at the breakfast agreed that action needed to be taken, but agreeing on what those steps are isn’t quite so simple.  There is one school of thought that emerging markets such as India and China should be reining back their industrial development and implementing only environmentally friendly processes.  However, the other camp believes that already developed western markets such as the US and Europe have had free reign for so many years that these are the markets that should be leading the charge for more carbon neutral living.

While we could get hung up on the debate about who is to blame for the current situation, and where the charge needs to start, the more pressing issue is to agree on what changes need to be made.  All of the delegates agree that some form of global regulations for the business community have to be defined. There are currently a number of directives around the world which only relate to relatively small regions when it comes to the use of hazardous waste, or polluting materials. For any really meaningful changes to be made, it needs to be agreed and managed on a global scale.

In addition to discussions about standards, the overwhelming feeling was that any action that is taken within the commercial sector cannot succeed, firstly without embracing new technology, but more importantly without total support from governments and individuals across the globe.  As we have already seen, the actions of relatively few countries can have a massive and often negative impact on other areas of the globe. Imagine the positive change that could be made if the whole world agreed to move in the same direction.

In the absence of any regulatory mechanisms, one proposal put forward was that a financial incentive and disincentive scheme could be implemented by financial institutions.  Companies would be fined for using or producing products on a pre-agreed ‘blacklist’, but are rewarded when they reduce their carbon footprint.

While climate change has undoubtedly been the phrase on everyone’s lips for the past couple of days, another interesting area that has come up on multiple occasions is the emergence of Asia and the BRIC economies as a key area of expansion for some of the world’s largest investment banks.  As the balance of power is shifting away from traditional markets, the general consensus seems to be that more attention needs to be paid to the more affluent societies that are emerging in areas such as Asia.

This is an area I anticipate discussing further when I attend a session on ‘Banking for the un-banked’ later today.  I am interested to see how the financial sector is planning to embrace the millions of people around the world who have no access to banking of any kind and what impact this will have on the global economy.

Ashok Vemuri, SVP and head - Banking and Capital Markets Business, Infosys Technologies

Comments

[No Fax Payday Loans - David]

Do you remember where you were you when the largest bank failure in U.S. history occurred? On Thursday, September 25, 2008, Washington Mutual bank voluntarily filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) seized the floundering Washington Mutual’s assets, and the company went into receivership. This could have been a catastrophic event for America’s economy. "Consumer watchdogs" who hound payday cash advance lenders would slink off with their tails between their legs. J. P. Morgan Chase came in to buy out WaMu at zero hour, but the ominous warning signs remain. Will more banks fail? What would have happened if J. P. Morgan Chase hadn’t bought WaMu, and the FDIC was forced to repay customers? That would have meant up to $100,000 per individual and $200,000 per joint account, as well as $250,000 for IRAs and so on. Many economists fear that such a bailout would have drained at least half of the FDIC’s reserves, which would be disastrous if more banks fail. Much of this has transpired because a number of greedy banks have taken advantage of the subprime home lending market. Some fear the problem will escalate, but others think the problem will fix itself. In times like these, payday loans can be a great option for people in search of short-term financial relief that banks can't provide.

Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/