top of page

Follow on Social Media

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Screenshot 2022-09-18 at 5.20.40 PM

M'sia Developments
[on SubStack]

  • Screenshot 2022-09-18 at 5.20.40 PM
  • Jul 19, 2023
  • 4 min read


KUALA LUMPUR and BERN, Jul 19 2023 (IPS) - In 2015, almost all heads of government in the world committed to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including universal health coverage (UHC). This was consistent with the World Health Organization’s commitment to Health for All.


The COVID-19 pandemic exposed most countries’ under-investment in public healthcare provisioning and other weaknesses. Clearly, health system reforms and appropriate financing are needed to improve populations’ wellbeing.

Instead of helping, more profit-seeking investments and market ‘solutions’ in recent decades have undermined UHC. Health markets the world over rarely provide healthcare for all well. Instead, they have increased costs and charges, limiting access. Worse, public funds are being diverted to support profits, rather than patients.


Health inequalities growing

Recent decades have seen healthcare in many developing countries trending towards a perceived two-tier system – a higher quality private sector, and lower quality public services. Many doctors, especially specialists, have been leaving public service for much more lucrative private practice.


This ‘brain drain’ has worsened already deteriorating public service quality, increasing waiting times. Hence, more of those with means have been turning to private facilities. As private medical charges are high in developing countries, many who can afford private health insurance, buy it.


If unchecked, the gap – in charges and quality – between private and public health services will grow, increasing disparities between haves and have-nots. Social solidarity implies cross-subsidization in health financing – with the healthy financing the ill, and the rich subsidizing the poor. Social solidarity also enables universal coverage and equitable access.


Better healthcare for all

Most governments need to strengthen public provisioning of comprehensive health protection with adequate financing. Meanwhile, healthcare costs have gone up due to more ill health, the rising costs of new medical technologies, privatization and less public procurement.


Everyone – nations as well as families – faces more unexpected health threats, worsened by rising catastrophic and other medical expenses, more economic vulnerability, greater income insecurity, declining public provisioning, and costlier coping strategies.


‘Premature’ death, disability and illness have meant losing billions of years of healthy life, largely due to preventable non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Although they cause many health losses, relatively little public health spending goes to NCD prevention.


Spending and outcomes

Most countries, including in the developing world, have seen rising healthcare spending. But there is no direct relationship between health expenditure and wellbeing. Hence, more spending does not ensure better outcomes, whereas appropriate public healthcare provisioning does.


Although health spending has been rising in many developing countries, it has generally remained low in relation to income. Government health services were already facing fiscal constraints before the pandemic. To cope with COVID-19, public health expenditure in many middle-income countries spiked.


Chronic underinvestment in public services has undermined healthcare overall. Many underfunded systems have nonetheless improved health conditions, reducing morbidity and mortality. Decent health outcomes, despite relatively low health spending, imply greater public expenditure ‘cost-effectiveness’ or efficiency.


Nonetheless, much more could be achieved with better policies, increased spending and more appropriate priorities. Thus, reducing child and maternal mortality, besides improving sanitation and water supplies, have significantly raised life expectancy in developing countries.


Improving policy

To enhance wellbeing, health systems must better protect people from current and future threats and challenges. Better public healthcare financing – with absolutely and relatively more, but also more appropriate funding – seems most important.


Developing country governments are often fed oft-repeated, but doubtful claims that current government healthcare spending is too high, and health insurance is necessary to fill the funding gap. Instead, official revenue should mainly fund health budgets to ensure efficiency and equity.


Health promotion should involve more preventive efforts. By mainly focusing on curative interventions, most government spending and policy priorities neglect determinants of wellbeing, including inequities. Some WHO recommended policies deemed most cost-effective target tobacco products, harmful alcohol use and unhealthy diets.


Policy coherence

To better address overall wellbeing, a more comprehensive and integrated approach should integrate health with related public policies. Affordable healthier food options, physical exercise and healthier lifestyles deserve far greater emphases.

For example, a cheap, but nutritious, safe and healthy daily school feeding programme in Japan – introduced a century ago, when it was still quite poor – has ensured life expectancy in the archipelagic nation has been the world’s highest for decades.


An ‘all-of-government’ approach should ensure meals planned by dieticians, mindful not only of good nutrition, but also of local food cultures, costs, safety and micronutrient deficiencies. With a ‘whole-of-society’ approach, involved parents can ensure schoolchildren are fed safe food from farmers not using toxic pesticides.


This can be ensured with the food or agriculture ministry’s participation. Farmer organizations can be contracted to supply needed foodstuff with initial support from government agricultural extension services, not corporate salesmen. This, in turn, improves the safety of all farm produce, ensuring healthy food for all.


Health reform recommendations should prioritize governments’ major commitments – to the people and the international community – of ‘universal health coverage’ to ensure ‘health for all’. Nazihah Noor is a public health policy researcher. She led two reports on health system issues in Malaysia, Social Inequalities and Health in Malaysia and Health and Social Protection: Continuing Universal Health Coverage. She is currently pursuing a PhD in public health in Switzerland.

 
 

By Sarah Razak and Jomo Kwame Sundaram


KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Jul 12 2023 (IPS) - As our planet continues to heat up at an

alarming rate, carbon credits, markets and trading have been promoted as effective measures to

combat global warming. While there is an urgent need to curb planetary heating, growing

reliance on this innovation is problematic, to say the least.


Global warming occurs when heat from the sun is absorbed by greenhouse gases (GHGs)

such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane. Like a blanket, GHGs trap heat, preventing it from

escaping our atmosphere. This raises temperatures on Earth, accelerating climate change and

triggering extreme weather events such as droughts, cyclones and floods.


Historically, human activities – including deforestation and fossil fuel burning – have

released CO2 into the atmosphere, increasing the already huge accumulation of emissions.

Continuing GHG emissions are now making this problem worse.


Market solution?

Carbon trading has been touted by some economists as the best, fairest and most efficient

solution to mitigate global warming. The basically simple market-based idea behind carbon

trading is appealing – companies will stop emitting as they must pay to release GHGs by buying

‘carbon [dioxide-equivalent] credits’.


With carbon trading, companies are rewarded for releasing less GHGs. Such companies

can sell their extra carbon credits to other companies exceeding their credits, who must thus pay

to release more GHGs.


Correctly pricing such credits is thus crucial for the efficacy of the mechanism. But

carbon trading promoters tend to under-price credits for carbon trading to gain more

acceptance and support.


Thus, this approach treats the Earth’s capacity to absorb CO2 as a service to be bought

and sold while ignoring its other all too real implications. Worse, quotas are often arbitrarily set,

without rewarding low emitters of the past and present.


Dubious equivalence

There are many GHGs – including methane, nitrous oxide, and others – of which the most

important is CO2. The notion of carbon [dioxide] equivalence had to be created to create a market

for GHGs’ estimated carbon equivalents (CO2e), ostensibly measured by their global warming

potential relative to CO2.


Thus, CO2e has become the ‘universal’ measurement unit for carbon trading, functioning

like a common currency. However, the CO2e yardstick for GHG trading is problematic as such

measures rely heavily on assumptions and estimates.


Carbon markets and trading – based on such equivalence – have, in turn, led to

misleading estimates and interpretation. The resulting poor policy analysis, formulation and

efficacy undermine efforts to address global warming more effectively.


Due to the complex and changing properties of gases, CO2e estimates have been subject

to many revisions. In 1996, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declared

one unit of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC-23) gas had a global warming potential equivalent to

11,700 units of carbon dioxide (CO2e) over a 100-year period.


In 2007, HFC-23’s CO2 equivalence was revised upwards to 14,800 CO2e. But the IPCC

noted even this huge revision upwards remained subject to a huge margin of error of plus or

minus 5000 CO2e units.


CO2e is also complex to navigate as different GHGs have different properties. For

example, HFC-23 has a stronger warming effect than CO2 in the short-term. Thus, using a

common yardstick for these two very different gases – as is commonly done – is not only

scientifically moot, but also analytically misleading.


Carbon markets delay action

Unsurprisingly, carbon trading’s premises remain controversial. After all, carbon trading does not

actually reduce GHGs, but merely discourages increasing emissions by imposing the costs of buying

credits. Thus, instead of cutting GHG emissions, companies can buy carbon credits, fostering

an illusion of progress.


Those buying carbon credits may believe they are thus reducing GHG emissions. But in

fact, emissions do not decline much. Worse, companies may believe they are fully compensating

for all the negative consequences (‘externalities’) of emitting GHGs by buying carbon credits. But

this is an illusion.


High GHG emitters do not actually have to make much effort to cut emissions. Buying

carbon credits, ostensibly to compensate for their GHG emissions, has thus become a low-cost,

low-effort alternative to investing in less GHG-emitting technologies.


Unsurprisingly, most major emitters prefer the cheaper option of carbon trading over

such transformative investments. Real investments in better technologies typically require

significant upfront costs, while the financial returns to such investments are almost never

immediate.


Companies have every incentive to indefinitely postpone major efforts to cut GHG

emissions by participating in carbon trading. Thus, carbon trading effectively delays – rather

than accelerates – needed transitions to renewable energy technologies.


‘Carbon offsets’ offset action

Companies can earn carbon credits for doing ‘climate friendly’ projects – such as reforestation –

to offset the harm done by GHG emissions. These projects are supposed to compensate for the

harm caused by GHG emissions, ostensibly offsetting companies’ adverse environmental

impacts.


While planting trees can absorb CO2, it does not immediately eliminate accumulated

CO2. A significant time lag occurs as growing trees need time to increase their capacity to

absorb CO2, and thus reduce atmospheric CO2 levels.


The rate of CO2 emissions release into the atmosphere exceeds the rate at which CO2 is

naturally absorbed by natural sinks like forests, including offset projects. This imbalance has

contributed to an accelerating increase in long-term GHG accumulation levels in the

atmosphere.


Although carbon trading may help reduce growing emissions at the margin, it has not

significantly reduced accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere. The time lags involved further

diminish its net contribution, and certainly do not offer the urgent solutions needed.


By purchasing carbon credits from such projects, many think they are thus offsetting their

GHG emissions. But there is no empirical evidence that such offset projects actually reduce

GHG emissions, i.e., carbon trading is not even ‘net-zero’.


Holistic approach needed

Unsurprisingly, carbon credits, markets and trading have fostered a false sense of progress. Most

problematically, it has delayed the urgent need for an accelerated transition, especially to far

more renewable energy generation and use.


To more effectively address the challenges of global warming, we need to move beyond

carbon trading to a more comprehensive approach prioritizing more urgent, effective and

impactful adaptation and mitigation efforts, including renewable energy generation and use.


Sarah Razak and Jomo Kwame Sundaram work at the Khazanah Research Institute in Kuala Lumpur.


 
 

Latest Videos

All Videos

All Videos

AN URGENT CALL: A PEOPLE"S VACCINE AGAINST COVID-19

00:00
9 June 2020: IHD-ILO-ISLE Virtual Conference - Day 2

9 June 2020: IHD-ILO-ISLE Virtual Conference - Day 2

05:08:34
Learning in Governance in times of COVID-19

Learning in Governance in times of COVID-19

46:30
Beyond the Lockdown: Towards the ‘New Normal’

Beyond the Lockdown: Towards the ‘New Normal’

59:10

About Jomo

Jomo Kwame Sundaram is Research Adviser, Khazanah Research Institute, Fellow, Academy of Science, Malaysia, and Emeritus Professor, University of Malaya. Previously, he was UN Assistant Secretary-General for Economic Development, Assistant Director General, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Founder-Chair, International Development Economics Associates (IDEAs) and President, Malaysian Social Science Association. 

In The Media

TheStar 26 June 2020

TheStar 26 June 2020

The Star 20 Sept 2019

The Star 20 Sept 2019

Political will needed to push for renewable energy

The Star 10July 2019

The Star 10July 2019

Malaysian businesses need boost

The Star 9 Oct 2019

The Star 9 Oct 2019

Subsidise public transport for bottom 40%

The Edge 26 Sept 2019

The Edge 26 Sept 2019

Call for measures to counteract global headwinds

The Edge 9 Oct 2019

The Edge 9 Oct 2019

Subsidise public transportation, not fuel

The Star 8 Oct 2019

The Star 8 Oct 2019

Subsidise public transportation for bottom 70%

TheEdge 2Oct 2019

TheEdge 2Oct 2019

"We need to counteract downward forces"

Fake News

PLEASE BEWARE OF MISREPRESENTATIONS OF IMAGES OF JOMO

Commercial and political misrepresentation of his image attributing to him to things which he never said or misrepresenting things he may have said is being circulated on websites such as those posted here. 


You should also be warned, in case you are not already aware, of ‘click bait’ i.e. using such images simply to attract your interest, and then to download your online information for abuse for a variety of ends.

Please inform us and provide a screenshot and weblink to enable further action, which is incredibly difficult. 

Thank you for reading this and for your help and cooperation.

This has also been flagged on his official Facebook page

 

JKS image ad2.jpg
JKS image Bitcoin ad on  Facebook.jpg
JKS - Fake News 2.jpg
Contact Me
JKS - Fake News 3.jpg
JKS fake news 1.jpg

Nadi Insan by the People's History Centre

Read all editions of #NadiInsan from 1979 to 1983 free of charge at the Peoples History Center website.

 

Containing writings on socio-political issues, film and cultural commentary, as well as in-depth interviews, Nadi Insan is motivated by community activists and intellectuals in Malaysia.

Happy reading!

Dapatkan kesemua siri majalah #NadiInsan dari tahun 1979 hingga 1983 secara percuma di laman Pusat Sejarah Rakyat.

 

Berisi tulisan memperihal sosio-politik, ulasan filem dan budaya sehinggalah wawancara yang rencam, Nadi Insan digerakkan oleh aktivis masyarakat dan intelektual di Malaysia.

 

Selamat membaca!

Contact Me

  • Facebook Social Icon
  • Twitter Social Icon

Thank you for reaching out!

bottom of page