Aqua vitae

Jal. Neer. Paani. Aqua. Agua. Eau. Va-duh. Biyo. Mvura. Rano. Amanzi. Zou. Gui. Mmiri. Nam. Thuk. Wai. Mizu. Mul. Shouei. Air.

Air.

It is common knowledge that water is as essential to humans, and most other species on the planet, as air. Every language on the planet has a word for water, most have two or three in common use. Water creates, maintains and sustains our life force.

I watched a hindi movie yesterday called Road, Movie. It is directed by Dev Benegal, and tells the story of a young man who embarks on a life-changing journey (of course) in an old, dilapidated moving cinema. The film is well made, and thought-provoking. It raises important questions about the scarcity of water in rural regions of India, especially in the North. More importantly and perhaps unintentionally, the film also portrays that the task of finding water for families falls to women and that women of certain tribes will often walk for several days, or weeks in search of water across the dry, arid plains of Rajasthan in search of water. It made me think.

There is a rising movement among non-profit organizations that focuses on women's development, and sets forth the mandate that one of the solutions to climate change and poverty lies in fulfilling the rights of women in many developing nations. At a time when people in the Global North enjoy constant sources of running water 24 hours a day, it is almost incomprehensible that there are people elsewhere who have to walk hundreds of miles in search of this precious resource that is also a basic human right.

What is this connection between women and climate change? The idea is that most women in developing countries still have a close relationship with the earth. Human dependence on our planet's resources is never more clearly portrayed than in the reality of women's work. Especially, that of women in rural areas. In Rajasthan, as shown in the film Road, Movie, women often walk for hundreds of kilometres in search of water during seasons of drought. Half a world away, in the Kenyan Maasai Mara, young girls hold the job of walking miles to the river to lug gallons of water back home.

In rural areas, women are also responsible for growing food and tending herbs and vegetable gardens to feed their families. This close relationship with the earth, and the riches the earth offers, is what connects women so deeply to the environmental cause. The idea that both women and mother earth are 'producers' deepens the association.

Now, I don't believe that all women inherently have this connection.... an urban woman experiences life and connection to the planet very differently from a rural woman. The scent of the urban woman is perhaps as twangy and metallic, as the scent of the rural woman is like the smell of wet earth after the first rainfall.

But isn't that the beauty of being a woman?

Naari. Stri. Aurat. Mujer. Femme. Nü. Frau. Donna. Vrouw. Woman.

The Robin Hood Tax

I recently joined the organization Oxfam Canada as a volunteer. It is a refreshing experience being part of something that is so much bigger than oneself, but that shares one's mandate and mission in life.

Most of Oxfam's campaigning for the spring revolves around issues that will be/need to be discussed at the G8/G20 summits being hosted by Canada this summer. One of the biggest issues that Oxfam Canada, and other not-for-profit organizations as well as the public want to see discussed at the summit is adequate fundraising for international aid that was promised to Africa before 2015. Adequate and efficient fundraising.

The solution to this particular fundraising problem lies in the implementation of a tax, affectionately and popularly named the Robin Hood Tax, which would place a relatively small 0.05% tax on financial transactions conducted by investment banks. This tax, though small would help raise an estimated $350-600 billion annually, which would be directed towards both, stabilizing economies in the Global North, as well as for relief efforts in the Global South. The best part about this tax (as well as one there seems to be a lot of confusion about) as it seems to me is that it taxes banks, and not clients. The tax is on financial transactions conducted between banks (share transactions etc.), and therefore would not apply to daily transactions made by clients. The confusion about whether or not ordinary consumers would end up paying for this tax remains as one of the biggest misconceptions about this tax.

The arguments against the Robin Hood Tax are aplenty. Some economists argue that a tax like this would not work unless every government endorses and implements it. Banks will likely opt out of conducting transactions in markets that impose the tax, and take their business elsewhere. Canada and Harper are getting patted on the back for vehemently opposing the global bank tax (The Economist, Canadian Business etc.).

Because God forbid the rich should be taxed! My question is: If a 0.05% financial transaction tax can raise upto $600 billion annually, how much must the banks be making in the same duration?

Here are answers to some FAQs about the tax, courtesy of Oxfam Canada.