carbon credit trading 4

Green tickets
For people who want to do something for climate change, www.climatecare.org and www.carbonneutral.com provide green ticket of airplane. This is the same as the normal tickets, but add some prices on that are used for green project around the world. “For example, offsetting a flight from London to Paris would cost you 37p.” (Goff, 2006). “[British petroleum] offers more expensive offset petrol in Australia” (The Economists, 2006), while they provide normal price petrol. Environmentally friendly consumers do not mind that a company put the cost of offsetting on the commodity prices.

Forestation
An acre of planted forests takes 400 to 450 tonnes of carbon dioxide over the 100 years. (Knight-Ridder, 2004). As the forest gets bigger naturally, people are able to sell more carbon credits. That means slower increase of income at the beginning and rapid increase later. However, calculating the exact amount is difficult. Accidental, forest fire and infestations could release the carbon to air. People need enough amounts of funds to maintain primary forests and sustain the environment.

Fund
Extreme weathers, such as huge hurricanes, heavy snows, and recorded heat, lead the funding easier for environment conservation. HSBC (The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited) is focusing on supporting a business, which is environmentally sustainable. Moreover, Swiss Re and Munich Re, an insurance company starts investing more for the climate change. Energy efficient technologies save usage of oils, increase profits and it develops the corporation, but it also contributes to decline of climate change. Insurance companies have to prepare for compensation, which is caused by natural disasters and the climate change.
Financial companies start looking at environmentally sustainability of businesses, to make sure that those businesses would not get bankrupted with disasters instigated by the climate change.

Indulgences sins
People say that offsetting of carbon emission is similar to past indulgences sins, which was printed by the Catholic Church, people purchase for forgiveness. (The Economist, 2006). In India, where people do not have emission cap by Kyoto protocol, ‘carbon credits’ is used to call subsidies for plantation owners. Their plantations also have trees that capture green house gases, but those are often planted after they deforested native tree. When people purchased this kind of carbon credit they can feel free from pollution problems, and they could support local farmers in developing countries, but it does not work for the climate change, primary reason of the credit trading. (The times of India, 2005).
On the other hand, the permit trading is able to effective for the global warming. The negative reputation is also because people cannot view air pollutions and effect of permit trading. The emission must be cut, but people wonder whether the trading works or not. That also means lack of trust on the permit trading by people. In any industries, makers cannot sell their products without trust by customers. It is the same as on permit trading. The market needs work to improve their images, like car industries advertise themselves. Green tickets also require trust by consumers. In the case of car industries, people can see tangible cars, but it is not easy to show consumers result of the permits trading for operators. Moreover, people are not going to buy a car if they do not know the quality of it. Operators of credits traders also need to market themselves to prove their activity qualities to consumers. (Mackintosh, 2006)

Kyoto protocol
This agreement is to reduce overall emission of green house gases to stop global warming, however, it exclude newly industrializes countries such as Brazil, Russia, India, and China. Those are becoming major causes of air pollutions, and their economic growth suffers developed countries. It discourage companies in developed countries to invest for improve their efficiencies. International society does not have any further proposal that encourage developing countries not to increase their pollutions. If people had one it would cost developing countries a lot to prepare the same quality of facilities that advanced countries are using. Also, it offers more revenues for companies, which have advanced technologies for production.

Conclusion
The carbon emission trading has variety types. The most formal one is European climate exchange, operated by European Commissions. There is not easy to perticipate for individual people. Chicago climate exchange is organized by volunteers and have more flexibility. There is an enough space for companies to participate in the trading and gain profits. In addition, any people can arrange their own carbon credit as one of green marketing. Green tickets are one of them. Managers cooperate with airplane companies to sell a ticket for higher price, which used for green activities and offset their emission. In the case, people need special marketing strategy for trust of the credits. When people can create a ‘green’ image of carbon credit trading, the business will be economically successful.

carbon credit trading 3

Introduction
I would like to discuss about carbon credit trading. Often people focus on the trading as environmental point, but in this report I will look at an economical part, whether people organize profitable business model or not. This report will base on primary idea of emission trading before 2000, and compare it to recent new article, which talks about the trading as a practical method.
In spite of fundamental issues, the carbon emission trading has been carried out by European Unions and Chicago climate exchange. Then, it is one of the first growing and controversial market in the world. (The Economist, 2006).

Permits trading market
European climate exchange was established to follow the Kyoto protocol reductions limit. It is a cap trading. European Union set the maximum pollution limit on some industries such as power station and cement producers, and those participants trade reminders between real pollution and the permits. If they pollute less than their permits they have extra gain, but if they pollute more than the permits they have to buy the credit at the market, or European Union fine them. This fine system drives companies to the market and keeps it working. (LatinFinance, 2005). Because many companies try to buy carbon credits not to pay fine, they keep their trade price higher. Then, they will start reducing the overall carbon emission by tightening the permits. (Vencat, 2006). “The level of carbon credit allocated to each country will also be cut further after 2008” (Goff, 2006), to meet the initial emission target in 1991.
However, the European exchange is to reduce domestic emissions so they do not allow the offsetting by planting trees. (The Economist, 2006). Because the natural environment in Europe has developed well, they do not have incentives to plant extra trees. National parks are already well-protected area and central authority has spare fund to conserve nature without private sectors. Additionally, if they allow people to credit carbon dioxide exhausted by trees, it would cause an oversupply of the credit. That is because there are huge areas of forests on the earth. Then the oversupply of the credit triggers fall of credit price at the market that motivate polluters. When they do not have to pay high price, they tend to rely on offsetting by the credit rather than actually reducing their emissions. Furthermore, the credit by plans vacuums money from other industries that they should invest to new facilities or innovate new technologies. When the market encouraged a company not to develop reduction method, its primary purpose could not become true.
On the other hand, the United States has not signed the Kyoto protocol, so they have not promised any green house gas reduction to international society. Chicago climate exchange is organized a group of volunteer companies, which are interested in sustainable management. This market applied more flexible management systems. Japan was an economically second largest country, host country of Kyoto forum, and signed the protocol, but they have not organize the market. They are preparing to set up a permits trading market at Nagoya, but they are more likely to choose a regulation and subsidy based methods to meet the goal of green house gas reduction. In United States, some people prefer command-and-control system of green house gas emission reductions. (Oil & Gas Journal, 2001).

Market value
Whether the emission trade can prevent the global warming or not, that was a primary purpose of the trading, the scale of the market became bigger and bigger without it. (Euromoney, 2006). Volume of the credit trading was $10 billion in 2005, and it is going to reach $30 billion in 2006. By contrast, the trade value of sum of all wheat crops in United States was $7.1 billion in 2005. (Heather, 2006). The emission permits was started trading last 15 years, but the volume of the trade was already larger than United States food production, which has longer history as an industry. (Energy & Environment Management, 2002). In May 2006, the quantity of right to emit one tonne of carbon was 53 million, compare to 1 million units in 2005, and one analyst expected that between 2008 and 2012, the market will deal with 10 billion unites. Then the price of permits which is 16.50 euros in 2006, is going to be about 19.50 euros for 2008. (Goff, 2006). However, the trading system is not prepared well yet. In the case of another major financial market, operators are likely to release market domestic information quarterly, monthly, or even daily. On the other hand, at the European climate exchange, they released once a year. (Heather, 2006). It cause some troubles.
One day, at European climate exchange, a credit of a metric tone for 30 euros falls to 8.50 euros in a day. (Zwick, 2006), and when accidentally a European emission date was released 3 days earlier than planed, “price plummeted to 8.60 euros ($11) a metric ton, down from a high of 31 euros in mid-April” (Heather, 2006). Those show us un-sustainability of the carbon trading. Those problems damage a reputation of the market, and discourage participants being honest. If they can buy the permits cheaper than they have expected, they tend to look at market rather than work hard to reduce their emissions. According to The Economists (2006), 374m tonnes of carbon credit worth $2.7 billion. Then, 800 million tons of carbons, which worth more than 17 billion were traded on the European emission trading. (Vencat, 2006).

carbon credit trading 2

Forth, monitor and report system. It is also the same as the other financial markets, that people are trading credit, which they cannot see. Someone needs to check the quality of commodities, and guarantee it. However, still in stock markets, managers make up their accounts, which people can be certify later, to enlarge their stock prices. It is easier for managers to report fake emission quantities, which no one can see. If people cannot prohibit making up of emission result, the trading will be confused and fail the reduction of green house gases.

Fifth, a power to control the trading. The market operators need power to enforce some industries to join the credit trading and make sure that they are reporting right amount of emission from their productions. They still discuss whether they require a special international authority to maintain multinational corporations or they ought to ask states’ governments to look after companies in their countries. If there is an international market, it is necessary to international association to maintain the market directly. Otherwise, each country would have different rule on the market and corporations tend to move toward a country, where they have less strict rules. On the other hand, if countries have their own markets those governments should be neutral from any corruption concentrating on reduction of green house gases.

Fundamental souse of the idea is from a regulation on lead-in-gasoline processing during mid-1980 in US. The government regulated all companies’ productions that which company processed what amounts of lead-in-gasoline. Then, if there was a company, which wanted to produce more than their permit, they had to buy the allowance from other companies. That meant a company, which did not have efficient facilities, had to paid extra to buy the permits to continue operations, while other could earn benefits by selling their permit with developing their technologies. Over all, the government succeeded controlling the production proving incentives to both side. This market had been restricted on refiner-by-refiner only, but it opened to banking in 1985. The financing system sustained the market, cut the cost for market maintenance, and reduced lead-in-gasoline with minimum costs, so people are expecting to apply this method to reduce other productions, which have negative impacts on environment. (Harrison, 1999, p. 23-51).

Nevertheless, effectiveness and efficiency of emission trading depends on how expensive the authority control is related to other methods. To maintain the emission trading, an authority needs to set the permits for each industry, check accuracy of emission report that members submit, and they also have to observe strange change in the market. It costs some amounts of money. Therefore, the authority is able to spend same amount of funds for different methods to achieve the goal as well. For example, when they are going to reduce the green house gases, they can fund a laboratory to develop new technologies. If it is more cost effective than operating emission trading, they had better not organize emission trading. In practice, the market based emission trading is likely to more cost efficient than command-and-control policy. (Tietenberg, 1985, p. 56-57).

Original emission trading program was created by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to improve regulation process in 1980’s. That was a political movement occurred in 1970’s by president Nixon and developed to the Reaganomiscs. (Tietenberg, 1985, p. 1-3). In a transformation of economical politics from regulation and subsidy based structure to market based structure, central authority step backward from direct restriction to the emission controlling. This aspect worked well to established first emission trading, because it has a ‘command-and-control’ part and ‘free-market’ part. Conservative people were satisfied that they could control distribution of the permits and the market system gratifies the other half. (Tietenberg, 1985, p. 214-215).

In the case of taxes on petrol, it tend to weight on customers more than on merchants, so regulation tax often suffer poor people rather than multinational corporations. However, in emission trading, a company, which has trade surpluses, does not have to put extra cost on the commodity price. That is one of differences between ordinary regulation and the emission trading.

carbon credit trading 1

Definition: What is the carbon credit [emission] trading?
Carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) emissions trading were established on Kyoto agreement, which was proposed in 1997. This main purpose is to reduce air pollution of developed countries to 1990’s level, and to stop the global warming. As an example of the emission trading, in the United States, 22 states organized regulations to reduce emission of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and set a tradable emission.

“Tradable permit” is an emission allowance that an organization regulates parties the right of maximum pollution. Members trade remainders between emission limits and real emission, among themselves. If a member pollute less than their limits they can sell the gap to another member, which polluted more than their limits. Because every association wants to maximize their profits, one side has incentive to sell more emission allowance and the other side has rational to buy less, so this system motivates the members to reduce their emissions. Economists have focused on creating a market to trade the permission for long time, because of efficiency. The market profits motivate companies, people can meet reduction target without any extra-costs, such as subsidies.

On the other hand, there are some issues related to the trading.
First, distribution of initial allowance. Some organizations would distribute the initial allowance following an indicator. The indicator must be fair to every industry, which includes different kinds of productions. Power plant industries should have larger amount of allowances per revenue, thought information industries do not have to have larger credits. Financial industries ought to have a unique type of credits that control their investment.
If a system encourages financiers to support energy efficient technologies, this would reduce more air pollutions. For example, every industry has some production scheme, one emits less green house gases than others pollutions. The allowance system could push banks to fund for less polluting productions. Moreover, if the system encourages banks to invest on a company, which developed better technology, the banks would start discovering those companies. That means companies could have double initiatives to looking at innovating technologies to accelerate the reduction of the pollutions. One is direct income from permits trading but the other is financial reason that they can fund primary asset easier. If they have more eased monetary flows, they can manage their business easier. Yet, the indicator for allowance must be fair to every industry.

Second, characteristics of carbon credit. Stock exchanges and currency markets have banking system where traders deposit their saving a while. This is because those assets do not disappear, but the air is flowing around. If an organization allows members to deposit trade permits, it is going to be more difficult to measure an outcome of the emissions’ reduction. Moreover, in the case of shares, financial companies keep those only to make profits, but it is a question that an organization should allow them or not. As positive point, those financial companies work as functions between real traders. They are going to buy at lower price, fill a lack of demand, and support suppliers, who want to sell as higher price as possible. Then they tend to sell at higher price, fill a lack of supply, and help purchasers to buy as lower price as possible. They can keep the trading stable and support the market active. As negative side, they are also able to intervene the market at different periods. If they sell the permit at the same time other real traders wants to sell, the price would drop, and real traders would lose passion on the market’s purpose, the reduction of the emission. Then, if they were going to buy the permit with other real participants, the price of heat up and real traders would not be able to buy enough amount of credit to offset their emissions.

Third, an association structure. Every industry must participate the trading or some industries do not have to join. For example, car industries should enlist in the trading alliance to reduce their emissions, because they are major causes of green house gases. (Machintosh, 2006). On the other hand, it is a considered that whether information industries need to sign up or not. They do not pollute much carbon dioxide compared to car industries. That means even when an organization set a permit on them, they do not contribute the trading much. In the case of a steel industry, the permit of emission will be a thousand tones per a company or more, and their tradable amount can be about a hundred tones surplus or negative, depending on the companies. In contrary, at information industries, the emission permit would be less than a tone, and they are going to trade about few kilograms of carbon dioxide. Their contribution to the market is very lower than steel industries, and they do not have much affect on the price of the permission that drives other industries to reduce emissions. They do not have considerable loss or benefits from the trading. Then, if an organization allowed information industries to have similar amount of carbon credit, they would have larger emission surplus and sell it in the market. That causes an oversupply of emissions’ permits and declines the trading price. In this situation, huge industries are able to buy enough amounts of carbon permits for low price from the market, so they tend to rely on consuming carbon permits, which is cheaper than investment and effort to reduce their emissions.

children solders 2

In those days the proliferation of small arms provided children with opportunities to fight against adults equally. It encourages the recruitment of children as combatants. Moreover, children have not developed their identify fully so it is easier to train children rather than mature people. (Russell & Gozdziak, 2006).

In Sri Lanka, a quota system, which discourages passing grades for Tamils, offers a Tamil Tiger a reason to recruit children as solders. Children “were told they had no future in their country unless they fought and were willing to die in the war that had begun before they were born” (Mitchell, 2006). The battlefield is commonplace for them since they were very young.

Recently in Uganda, “although there is no peace agreement in sight, many international and local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) hope to assist in bringing all the child soldiers home once the war has ended” (Russell & Gozdziak, 2006). However, There is an argument between centre-based rehabilitation and community-based approach. Centre-based programme can provide specialized care with experts for trauma before they go back home, but practically, in a community-based approach, children show rapid recovery from the physical effects of war. In practice, there are three factors, which support children’s recovery, “individual personalities, supportive family and community environment, and external agencies (such as NGOs) that function as support systems for strengthening and reinforcing a child's coping efforts” (Russell & Gozdziak, 2006).
Suggestions/Recommendations

Child soldiers need three main aspects for rehabilitation; both of the internal and external community that support them, and personal motivation.

First, they need support for mental and physical rehabilitation. However, conditions of child soldiers are all different. Some are addicted by drugs, and some are alcoholic. Also, every soldier has different experience. Some have really basic primary education, but some do not even know their families. Moreover, during wars, some became adults while the other are still children. Each condition requires different treatment. Therefore, each NGO should narrow their object and they should construct strategies to support rehabilitation of their children. It is difficult to support all children for a NGO, but they can share their jobs, depending on their specialties. Highly drug addicted children would need experts help through a centre-based approach, while community-based works would help psychosocial rehabilitation for less addicted children. Then, a NGO with some medical experts should act as a centre-based organisation, which protects children from real society. Other NGOs should work to connect the local community and children for integration.

Secondly, they need dream for their future to motivate themselves, but on a battlefield survival is the main purpose and they cannot think about their future. So, the NGO should provide them peace places where no one abducts them. Then, they need education to make dreams come true or to get employed. The contents of education are important to support their economical situation, independence and reconstruction of countries. If the educational system is not prepared enough and the economy of the country cannot have competitiveness in the global market, monetary NGOs cannot support long-term rehabilitation and development. NGOs should focus on education about Information Technology and foreign languages. Particularly, software-programming industries that require fewer infrastructures such as Internet connections, a minimum amount of electricity and computers, compared to factories that require facilities, transportation systems, more electricity, and raw materials. Moreover, productivity per capita of programming work tends to be higher than other industries, so computing offers better living standards for employees. In addition, if they have competitive technological and language skills, they are able to find better jobs in developed countries when they leave their countries. No government wants to lose their domestic labours, so the presser would encourage commanders to face peace agreement, which sustain their society and attract people.

children solders 1

According to the Quaker United Nations Offices-Geneva and Save the Children Sweden, “three hundred thousand children under the age of eighteen participate in armed conflict globally” (Dryden-Peterson, 2006). Particularly, over one hundred thousand children take a part in conflicts in African countries, such as in Burundi, Ivory Coast, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, and Uganda (Dryden-Peterson, 2006). Child solders are defined as under the age of eighteen, but it is more difficult to identify when countries do not have birth registration systems.

In Northern Uganda, Lord’s Resistance Army has abducted 30 000 children over the past 20 years, and forced the children to serve as child soldiers. Some commanders prefer children because they are more obedient, easily motivated and dedicated than adults. Especially, “Very young children also lack a fully developed sense of right and wrong and are easily trained to be brutal soldiers” (Russell & Gozdziak, 2006). Before battles, commanders use drugs, alcohol, initiation rite, or magic charms to manipulate children into being fearless. Those children are also exploited for auxiliary services as porters, cooks, construction workers, or latrine diggers. Moreover, they often perform for more dangerous tasks, such as spying, minesweeping, or guarding prisoners of wars. “Girls may be pressed into domestic servitude, forced to provide sexual services, or become "wives" of older soldiers” (Russell & Gozdziak, 2006). They are surviving in an extreme environment.

Because they grow up in combat they are less likely to integrate into peaceful society after war, than adult combatants who were socialized to civilian society. Wars devastate child soldiers psychosocially. World Vision rehabilitation center for abducted children “indicated that former child soldiers in their care experienced nightmares, insomnia, bedwetting, eating disorders, difficulty concentrating, and exhibited behavioral problems when interacting with others” (Russell & Gozdziak, 2006). For example, “some children became hostile towards others, resorting to violence to solve problems, while others became depressed and suicidal. Still others live in fear of punishment for their actions or being forced back into combat” (Russell & Gozdziak, 2006). Especially, Girls who served as ‘wives’ for other soldiers or were raped in refugee camps often exhibit unhealthy sexual behaviors (Russell & Gozdziak, 2006). Many girls have to return home with their babies worrying about the reaction of their society. Furthermore, all child soldiers may have contracted HIV/AIDS, other sexually transmitted infections or drug/alcohol addictions. Additionally, because of their lack of social education, they are less likely to be employed after wars.
Background:

First of all, long wars cause a lack of adults, especially men who play a main part of battle as solders, so militias focus on children as combatants. In the case of Burundi, through the 12-year civil war about half of the population has become under age of 18. (UNICEF, 2006). Twenty-plus-year of ‘no mercy war’ between the Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the Sinhalese majority government is called as “the children’s war”. Because of a lack of ordinary warriors, the Tamil Tigers use suicide bomb attacks and child soldiers, even those cause two significantly negative reputations. “Since 1987 the Tigers have shown their most vile stripes with the use of the suicidal Black Tigers, which includes females (teens and young women) willing to self-detonate for the cause” (Mitchell, 2006). During the World War II, Japan and United States also dropped solders age and encourage women and children to start working behind the war.

technology and economical development 2

In command economy, it is easier for a central authority to focus on an exporting industry to develop, but it is not so easy to select which industry because the future is uncertain. North Korea is also a good example of that. They failed on choosing one, so they have advanced missiles and war technologies but they are still one of the least developed countries. Furthermore they have nothing except the technology. Only a better technology is not enough for the development of economy. They need people who can lead their development on the right direction.

On the other hand, if there is a person who comprehends the international market and leads the country, command economy is able to develop faster because they fund capital only for a strategic industry and take advantage there. In Japan, people borrowed funds from the international market, invested on a second industry and have developed the country. Moreover, if a government could lead economic controlling energy prices and encourage companies managing business to be more economy before price-system re-act on the increase of demand, their companies could adopted in the high petrol price better, or the government could stabilize the energy price. A central authority would support domestic industries in the international market well.

In market economy, a government can work less to lead their country. That means they cannot concentrate their capital on a strategic industry, and tend to develop slower. In contrast, market economy tends to encourage ordinary people to invest to make a profit or lose. Every person has their own favorite, so they are likely to invest on different industries that they prefer. This behavior would diversify their economic system, and they would catch up with any changes in the global economy. Principally, when the demand and supply price-system does not work as prediction of innovation.

If people want more bread, the increase on demand will raise the price of bread and the higher price would tell firms to supply more. On the other hand, new technology or products doses not have their price system. Then it does not appear on a price system a substitute even though it will affect and change the structures of industry. For example, both of USSR and U.S. had developed satellite technology, but only U.S. also used it for private broadcasting, and developed international mass media. That shows that a market economy culture tends to find out potential demand more and catch up with reorganizing of industry structure, than command economies do.



The concentrating of investments maximizes a result; profits or losses. In South East Asia, many countries have a strategy of development on increasing their exporting, so they are inclined to borrow funds from international investors who are expecting a high return from the currency trade easily. However, no country can keep importing goods from them, and once they face a decline in exporting they cannot borrow in a local currency, and if they are likely to import more they have to face a higher interest rate of their national security and weakened local currency. In that case, they have difficulty with funding. Even though global trading is going to increase productivity and wealth in the world, it does not solve a problem of poverty. In United States, people do business without border and it is the richest country, but the division between rich and poor is increasing. That means international free trade is not an answer that solves the problem of poverty on earth.

Consequently, unless a developing country has to import daily commodities they should close their border to save money domestically. When they prepare investments inside their country they do not have to lay on a risky loan. Then, when their economy does not depend on global trading, they do not have to care about international relations, and they have more opportunities in international politics. Moreover, the later they start they can pass more steps of development, and the domestic industry is able to have time to improve its technology. In a market of commodities that require high technology such as the airplane industry or the construction of nuclear power plants, few companies are competing. So, if the developing country can join there, they can sustain their development with less competition.

Where a central authority can concentrate their investment on an industry, its technology will develop much faster. However, in North Korea, people developed advanced missile technology, but it does not help their economic development.


People look at economic development with political and technological development, and they say Japan take advantages of better technology and United State develop with market economy. They are also talking that developing countries cannot grow up because they do not have money to encourage their development. However, China has developed their country on the way they are changing the form of economy, and USSR could not exist with advanced technologies. Then, every advanced county has started their development when they were not. Moreover, American computing companies are looking for workers in India, one of developed country.

I do not know what people at least need to develop their economy. I do not think that development must require technological or fiscal advantages, or special political condition. Economy can develop even in poor country or in command economy, if there is a person who can lead it. Furthermore I do not know whether people need developed economy to have happier lives or not.

technology and economical development 1

Developed countries tend to have more advanced technologies. However, nothing is sure in the future, so a developing country might discover an innovative idea and take over advanced countries. In the case of industrialized revolution, it happened in Great Britain, which was a backward country, and it took the United Kingdom to the most advanced country. People look at the negative feedback of poverty and low development rate, but economic developments do not have any relation with innovation, especially when they focus on development of educational systems and they have someone who can lead further investments. If a developing country has a passionate strategy of development, they will develop into an advanced country.


First of all, the development of economies does not have any relation with the development of technology. That is because people can concentrate funds on a strategic item to develop a technology by taking their best opportunities. For example North Korea, which is one of the least developed countries, they have advanced missile technologies compared with Sierra Leone, which has similar size of GDP, or Saudi Arabia, which has much bigger size of GDP. That is because the government focuses on investment for the development of military power. When people enjoy welfare by the government in Saudi Arabia, which has huge oil revenue, North Korean people are facing a lack of food. Otherwise while Sierra Leone people sell their rich natural resource such as diamond or gold to raise money for civil war particularly to buy guns and bullets, North Korean concentrate all revenue on development of the military technology. So, the richness of economic or natural resources does not have any relationship with innovations. It depends on the strategy of a developing country. Developing countries are still able to compete with advanced countries by taking the best in opportunities.

While, developing countries cannot compete in the sum of wealth against developed countries, developing countries are able to concentrate funds on a strategic technology, and compete on it against developed countries. In North Korea, they just focused on the development of the military industry and concentrated all the funds for that, and have developed the technology that only few countries have. Thus, it is a developing country and many people are facing a shortage of food, yet the government could create the competitive technology.


Educational systems are the most important aspect to develop in technology and industry, and create competitiveness. That is because temporal technological advantages do not support advanced countries to keep their technological strength.

At least every human takes almost the same amount of years to grow up, be educated, and organize a society. So, the length of history cannot involve in the quality of society. For instance, Japan had terrible bubble economy and its burst, so people might think that Japanese students know about a bubble economy well and have less risk of more economic failures. On the other hand, the experience has become a history already, so new generations have to study at to know. People who study ‘Japan’ in other countries would learn it better. The quality of knowledge depends on the quality of textbooks and classes that they would take, and a quality of society or economic competitiveness depends on those education systems that people have gone through and going to teach to the next generation. That is why developing countries are able to catch up upward countries easily with improving their educational system.

Especially, imitating educational systems costs governments less than the innovation of technological development does, and preparing infrastructures for knowledge workers also require less costs than which for other industries, such as dams, irrigation or factories.

Already, developing countries have advantages in that they can copy a technology, which developed countries have innovated, with less effort. Although developed countries first constructed telephone lines, then towers for mobile phones, then moved on to the Internet lines and towers for the Internet waves, developing countries only need to construct towers for the Internet waves. They can skip the route of an ordinal development.

However, they have more advantages when they can copy knowledge works, more than copying an advanced method of first or second industry. In particular, international finance and computer programming are based on intelligence of workers and information technologies that cost less than preparing infrastructures such as ports, airports or means of transport. These kinds of jobs also do not require any geological advantages such as being close to a market or natural resource that are important for other industries. Moreover, knowledge works are more productive and tend to earn more profit per capita.

People say that if a country has serious problem of poverty, they might not have the possibility of preparing funds for improving their educational system and technology. However, in North Korea, they are focusing on educational systems, even though many people are suffering from famine and they keep the advantage of war technology and a high ability of negotiation in international society.

In another method, they are able to borrow money from international investors. Uniquely, developing countries, which are willing to expand their export for development, can expect their local currencies to get stronger with increase of exporting. In this case, international investors expect high return on currency trading but do not mind low interest rate on national security. That means developing countries have to worry about rewards for investors less and do not have to take the risk of fluctuant currency exchanging.

A developing country, which is moving toward expanding their exports, can publish bills in a local currency, and they have less difficulty of gathering funds and paying back.

fair trading???

I wonder why developing countries want to join the world market because they don’t have to join and don’t have enough competitiveness. It is obvious that the world market is bigger than domestic markets so they might be able to have a chance to get richer there, but without better productivity they cannot be winners. Unless they can beat other there, they are not able to get rid of their poverty through the trade. In United State, many citizens are competing with the world biggest companies fairly, under American rule. “Google” or some kinds of venture companies have won the game and become big, but many are still staying with poverty as we could see in the natural disaster. That means “Fair-trade” doesn’t have to bring money into poor countries and all countries need competitive strategy to survive the race.

Actuary, developing countries cannot compete against developed countries. That’s because rich countries don’t have to export and import any commodities, but developing countries want to do so. The European Union are spending large amount of money for subsidies to protect regional farmers. That is not efficient, but their other parts of economy are strong enough to support it. So, Chinese government is controlling currency exchange rate and protecting domestic industries to get advantage against riches’.

On the other hand, the least developed countries don’t have funds for subsidies, and don’t have enough power to control financial market and to set trade barriers. So, they need to create a strategy carefully to compete well. At least, they should not start free trade with developed countries carelessly. For example, if their industry depended on special treatment by developed countries, they would not be able to manage their economy when they lost the treatment. Moreover, if no internal industry were competitive, their domestic industries would be destroyed. Usually, the least developed countries don’t have technological and financial advance against multinational corporations. So, it is very easy that they can lose authority to maintain domestic supply by their selves.

They need time to construct enough infrastructures, to train workers and educate students, and to deposit money to maintain financial system for raise their industries. Some people say that means they need special aid for those, but at least we cannot hurry bringing children up educating them to competitive specialists in a part of businesses in the world. It must take ages that children are going to be abuts. I think that means they cannot and don’t have to hurry developing their industry. Now, labors in the least developed countries don’t have good education system, and all of their world competitive jobs are garments or farming. However, if they can prepare better education like in Finland, they don’t have to develop their economic structure from agriculture, manufacture industry to service. They can skip industrialized step to service, such as to banking, maintaining information technology and inventing things. For that, they don’t need too much infrastructures like big dams for electricity in factories. They just need minimum amount of electric for computers, net line to work on Internet and buildings for knowledge workers’ offices. So, they would save money for extra dams, factories, loads and natural environment inside their countries. Moreover, they can invest extra money, which other nations spent for temporary factories, for next generation to prepare better education systems.

The least developed countries could get more unexpected advantages by developing more slowly. For example in Japan, we laid line for telephone, we built towers for mobile phones as well, we’re also relaying another line for high-speed Internet now, and we’re going to make towers for radio-Internet additionally. Moreover, we reconstructed some roads, airport, port, dams and buildings sometimes, when we invent new technologies for new security system, new types of airplane and ships, and against natural disasters like earthquake. The least developed countries don’t have to waste such kinds of funds and don’t have to worry about practical use of new technology. They just compare some types of latest technologies used in each developed countries, and need to copy it. For instance, they should lay line for telephones, they just need to build towers for radio Internet and latest mobile phones. Some of new technologies are coming up every year. If they need much time to prepare to be competitive in the world market they should not hurry their development, unless they are suffered by lack of food or power in the International Society.

nuclear deterrence

“The nuclear war could destroy whole world, and no one wanted that. So, there was no direct army conflict between two big countries during The Cold
War.” I can comprehend that, but this idea makes state’s foreign policy difficult and ‘nuclear deterrence’ doesn’t make any sense for me.
Through movie “13 days” everyone who were in the white house was very afraid about the nuclear war, and careful about holding press conference, negotiating with USSR to warning to stop ships which was currying missiles.
However, number of missile was not enough to attack every U.S. city. That was just because U.S. government was thinking that nuclear war was once and position of nuclear weapons made advantages and disadvantages. If U.S. government hadn’t care about that, it might have been same situation of when
U.S. brought missiles into Turkey. At the moment, all they needed was to start taking and stop doubting each other. So they didn’t have to waste their time. I think that how to maintain their military power is more important than how to use the power for realists, or they might not have enough power when they need.
On the other hand, image of abilities of nuclear weapons is not correct.
Weapons made by technologically developed countries like U.S., U.K. and France may have strong power, which could affect huge area, but I don’t think any states can produce them. Almost all of nuclear missiles made by developing countries can destroy just a part of area, but image of them is strong as well as developed counties’ one. So, we don’t have many options to let countries like
North Korea, and Iran stop innovating their weapons. Many people are imaging that they can attack our town anytime they wanted, but it’s not true. Nuclear weapons are just arm not magic wands.
When I look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki where USA bombed 60 years ago, I find out that more that a million’s people living in either of cities, and their economic capacities are more than countries in Africa. To say the truth, economic and population of both cities are bigger than my home-prefecture.
Moreover, economic scales of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are more than that. That tells us that how excellent human’s effort to rebuild their town was. So, I don’t think that nuclear arms can destroy whole world, so that nuclear deterrence doesn’t work.
Especially for terrorists, they don’t have any specific bases. No state can revenge against nuclear attack by terrorists. So nuclear deterrence doesn’t work. Furthermore, I think that’s why they attacked the world trade centre and the pentagon, and still fighting against U.S. in Iraq. They are not worry about avenge by U.S. On the other hand, public opinions in U.S. and other developing countries are considering about nuclear deterrence. That may apply importance of nuclear weapons for terrorists and help them.

This article reminds me one movie "THE SUM OF ALL FIRE". In the story, terrorists bought a nuclear bomb and used it to let Russia and United State fight against each other. I thought directors of the movie are very smart. Terrorists have just a bomb, so they can't destroy all cities in U.S. but they use it to destroy cooperation between two big countries. It could be one of the ways for terrorists to fight against big countries. As a result, U.S. and Russia didn't fight in this movie. I think main reason is that American citizens like happy-ending-movie and cool-hero who attack evil, but there is another reason. It is nuclear deterrence. Both of presidents in Russia and U.S. didn’t attack each other directly soon after terrorists explode a bomb. That’s because both of them know the nuclear war is end of the world. They don’t want to do. So, hero had time to solve problems, and it was going to happy ending.

ecotourims in the future

In the ecotourism industry, development could isolate further developing. The development for “Tourism” means more visitors and attractions and activities. However a balance between humans and nature is the most important factor for “Ecotourism”. The more people that visit there, the more impact there is on the environment, so ecotourism is not sustainable with ordinal development of tourism industries. If we define “development” just as an increase of money follow. Ecotourism need to earn more benefit from limited number of visitors, to keep fewer impacts on the environment. That means you should focus on improving quality of service for each eco-tourist, and increase the fee.

If the number of tourists or business keeps increasing, The Department of Conservation will start stricter regulations to disturb it. However, their objectives are to protect the environment and to stop immoderate exploitation, not to interrupt ecotourism. So, you should keep contacting with DOC, and follow their new requests to protect nature and hold your concession. It is difficult to catch up with new regulations after those have started, but it is easy to pass barriers one by one. Then you will need to have fewer competitors.

Interests in environment and ecotourism have been increasing in advanced countries, after their industrialization. No one knows if they would keep their interests there or not. On the other hand, the majority of countries in the world are developing nations, which have not experienced industrialization yet. We say there is also a huge potential market of the ecotourism.

what is tourism study?

“Tourism is a study of how to maximize an amount of money that tourists spent in a place (region)”, and “Tourists are people who bring ‘fresh money’ into the place.” This is my definition of Tourism. Hunziker (1951) had focused on “the sum of the phenomena and relationships arising from the travel and stay of non-residents” as tourism. However, my definition is all about movement of money and the developments of tourism industry and infrastructure, such as transports, accommodations and activities-attractions. So, tourism benefits society, and scholars of tourism are able to keep earning money and benefit from their studies, and keep studying the tourism.

The biggest difference between my definition and others is the definition of Tourists. Jafari (1977) said tourists are “ man away from his usual habitat”, and focused on behavior of them. In contrast, my definition has focused on movement of money from outside of the area. So, my tourists include people who have retired from their job and living off their retirement funds. They are resident there, but they also bring money into the place from former residences. Also, people, who come for work, such as meeting, negotiation and survey but do not earn money from that, are tourists. For example, diplomats who join G8-summit or International Olympic Committee members are tourists as well. That is because they spend much money but they hardly earn any money there. In addition, there are students, who depend on money in bank accounts transferred from another place, are tourists. However, some backpackers who come with working-holiday visa or exchanging-workers visa could not be tourists although they do not stay a place long time. That is because they tend to bring very little money, and work and earn money to stay there. I would like to distinguish tourists from travelers by behaviors of expenditures. Travelers are just moving around for something and their expenditures are not problems, but tourist must spend money at the place.

My definition of tourism is about the flow of money, so the tourism industry must attract and bring new money. That means some kinds of transportation cannot be a tourist industry. For instance, airplane-companies, which do not have any facilities in the area would carry visitors but do not always bring any fresh money. Their passengers would buy return tickets at another city to come to the place, and if they are there for business they might not spend any money there at all. However, the airport where is mainly used for transit can be a tourism industry, so if passengers of stop over flights spend some amount of money during their stop over, for meals, relaxing, souvenirs and so on. Then this could be considered a tourist service. It could then be said the same for the train and bus industries. In my opinion, a petrol station can be a tourists’ industry for car-travelers, because most car-travelers tend to pass through a city but sometimes they stop there for fuel. That is one of fresh money, and a petrol station itself is an important factor for car-travelers, who have not decided where to go, because they do not want to be afraid run out of gas.

In the case of accommodation, all of them can be a tourism industry, because they can attract fresh money. For example, the housing industry provide new houses for immigrants or retired people, and houses of ordinary residents are also one of tourism facilities, because some of them would go travel during tour-season and rent their houses for visitors. So, flat or apartment houses are one kind of accommodations for tourists as well. Hotels, Motels and backpackers are basic places to stay, but some of them could interfere the industry. That’s because the style of them might interrupt the view or personality of the city. All of them have to not only just work as accommodations, but also attract people from another place by maintaining the image of the city. So, they would invite fresh money.

Other activities and attractions also have to attract people from other place. I would like to classify transportation, attractions, activities, restaurants, shops and backpackers into tourism industries they are basic structure of tourism. Local shops, which prove food for local people, can be one of them as well if it is providing food for travelers, backpackers, students or immigrants. Often backpackers are classified as tourists but they are more like a tourism promoter, because they tend to spend less money during travel, work in the industry and talk more about their travel after they go back to home. Every tourism environment has busy period and a low season, and many backpackers-labors are coming in the busy season as well. They have the inclination to be good seasonal labors. Additionally, they would speak more about their travels at their hometowns and encourage other, and after they get older they might come back with their families and more money. So, backpackers are one of the industries promoters, and not so much tourists.

Finally, I focused on economic side of tourism, and defined it as a study of money flow. So, people, who study tourism, need to discover how to get more money from outside of the area, and that’s why I distinguish tourists or tourism industries by flow of money. A tourist is anyone, who would bring money to the place, and the Tourism industry is everything, that encourages them to spend money. That means a tourism study would be able to develop tourism resorts for companies or workers, and Tourism Economists would receive rewards. So, they should consider any excursions, day-tours, travels or journeys as a tourism venture that can make more money. Furthermore, they can distribute funds for their research and develop their study more.

ecotourism business in NZ

The Abel Tasman is the smallest national park in New Zealand. However it has unique features of forest, coast and sea nature, and suitable place for ecotourism, that is sustainable tourism for both of nature and people. It is also the best style of tourism for local people. In limited amount of funds, guides of bush walk or sea kayaking are easiest methods to start ecotourism. If you guide them, tourist can be close friends with nature and learn them well. Department of conservation will asses you for concessions, please talk to local branch. They are to protect environment with developing ecotourism. You can corporate with Information-centre, accommodations or other tourism industries to manage business and receive booking. That means some guides would share Homepages or booking systems and work for each other. So, you can save cost for advertisement and tourists can make booking easily. On the other hand, development of ecotourism would destroy traditional environment. So DOC might make entrance narrower to start ecotourism as more people start the business. That means regulation in the national park could be strict more and more in the future. You need to keep following it.

a script

First you hate them,
Then you get used to them,
Enough time passed you get to depend on them.

Usually when people face something wrong or different, they cannot follow it first. However, they start getting used to it, and along years passed, they finally depend upon it, and if it is attractive cannot help doing it. In the movie ‘The Shawshank Redemption”, this ‘it’ is about corruption of prison guards. They are strongly depends on prisoners who treated them well.

As an example of world, I would like to mention the ‘culture’ itself. People move to a culture to another, they found difference of clothes, food and houses. Some of them would hate it because of loves for their own culture. On the other hand, to survive climate there, they have to follow the local culture and they would get used to it. As a community, they will help each other and start depending on other. As a result, they will love new culture. That means when they move back to their ordinal culture they would be confused, like when they meet new culture as well.

Execution of the death penalty

In ancient Greece, from 1200-800 B.C., all families of victims had the right to punish murderers and kill them themselves, or the families were able to ask them for monetary compensation for their satisfaction. Then, communities and public sectors started involving the punishments later. (Blecher, 2006). On the other hand, more than eighty nations have eradicated the death penalty recently. Many countries still have a legal death penalty system, but they hardly ever carry it out. Only four countries worldwide practice frequent executions. (Quindlen, 2006). Historically, people have been reducing the number of death penalties, and they have a logical reason to do so. The death penalty may kill innocent people and hide truths of crimes. Also, the end of the death penalty benefits a society and solves personal mental problems. Some people look at different positive aspects of the death penalty, so this essay will solve their misunderstanding. Now is a time to eliminate all executions all over the world.


First of all, the death penalty may kill innocent people. In the United States, more than a thousand prisoners were executed, and also 123 death-row inmates have appeared to be innocent and gone back to society since 1976. (Quindlen, 2006). It was possible that courts misjudged and killed innocent people. Some people say the death penalty is a symbol for potential criminals and will prevent illegal actions. However, if a court kills innocent people, it means they are a murderer as well and they are not able to announce judgment with a trustful reputation. On one hand, the number of released people means there were real criminals who were free in a society instead of innocent people. It is a terrible situation for everyone. Citizens have to live in fear, victims or their family cannot feel comfortable, and a person faces an unexpected death, because of false accusation. Then, if a court kills innocent people, they cannot complain again and it would be difficult for other people to restore their honor either. Even if true criminals are free in society, people are not able to notice it. The death penalty may kill innocent people and release criminals into a society, where they do not have to fear further prosecution.


Furthermore, dead people are not able to talk, but people can talk and provide information while they are alive. In a case of real criminals as well, while prisoners are alive in cells, they can talk. That means investigators are able to use them to gather information about crimes. They know their criminal world and black market better than police officers. They represent characteristics of criminals that support analyzing other crimes. Their information improves the quality of investigation and cuts the time and costs. Some people claim public expenditure to keep prisoners in the cells is too costly (Greenberg, 2006), but if their information supports an investigation, it would benefit the society. Moreover, those people in prisons are labourers who contribute to the economy of their countries. They work for very low wages that provide better service and reduce extra costs for the society. The criminals in prisons benefit the society economically, as sources of information and cheap labour. The end of the death penalty benefits a society. Additionally, a crowded prison prevents ex-prisoners coming back there. (Greenberg, 2006). That means if people eliminate the death penalty and keep criminals in a prison, leaving it crowded, it reduces the crime rate on the outside and improves the society. Yet, there is no proof that the death penalty prevents crimes, even though humanity has had it for thousands of years.


If a society wants to continue the death penalty, they need someone to practice it. The death penalty is the same as “parents hit their children to teach them that hitting is a bad thing” (Quindlen, 2006). It does not eliminate murders. As long as parents hit their children or a society has a capital punishment system, people must have executioners. Moreover, no normal parents want to hit their children when they do nothing wrong. No executioner wants to kill people who do nothing wrong. Still courts may announce wrong judgment, and people cannot eradicate false accusations. No one should force the executioner to kill someone who might not be a criminal. Especially, when the majority of citizens tend to feel relief when a criminal is judged and incarcerated, but they just as quickly forget about it. It is only in Texas that about 150 prisoners do not have lawyers for postconviction counsel. (Steiker, S. C., & Steiker, M. J., 2006). Executioners are not able to forget about it if they killed innocent people. They should be released from such mental stress.
In addition, victims and their families should be free from worrying. Because no one wants to die, even real criminals tend to complain against the judgment and they never admit to their crimes. This means their victims have to live with fears that real criminals are still in a city, or that criminals might come back to the city. Victims cannot feel comfortable until the judge has sentenced the accused. In the case of murders, the victim’s family knows what losing their family means. They do not want innocent people to die by the death penalty. The death penalty is against social morals by forcing executioners to murder, and leaving victims and their families uncomfortable.


Historically, the world is moving towards eliminating the death penalty. It is reasonable in terms of human rights, costs effectiveness and social morals. We must not kill innocent people, and think about positive aspects of locking prisoners in jails. Then, executioners, victims and their families would be free from that anxiety. It is the time to end all capital punishment, and make it a page of world history.