Connect with us

Features

What the world expects of Biden

Published

on

US re-entering the Paris Agreement on Climate Change:

By Dr Janaka Ratnasiri

At the outset, let me congratulate President-Elect (PE) Joe Biden and Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris (KH) on their historic win at the recent Presidential election. PE Biden made history by receiving the highest ever number of popular votes in any presidential election, while KH made history by being the first woman to be elected as the US Vice President, particularly with South Indian and West Indies parentage. It was reported in media that PE Biden had stated that one of the first initiatives he would take as President of USA would be to re-enter the Paris Agreement on Climate Change (PACC) from which the US withdrew after President Donald Trump assumed office in 2017. The purpose of this write-up is to highlight the implications of the US withdrawal from the PACC and its re-entry.

 

UN FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

The nations adopted the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the UN Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 to adopt collective measures to arrest the global warming caused by uncontrolled emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) and, thereby, avoid any long-term climate change having many adverse impacts globally. In the UNFCCC, countries are divided into three groups, the first numbering 36 as listed in Annex I to the UNFCCC document, comprising developed countries as well as countries with transition economies (mostly Eastern European countries), the second numbering 25 comprising developed countries as listed in Annex II and the third comprising developing countries referred to as Non-Annex I counties.

The division into Annex I and Non-Annex I Parties was based on the Parties’ per capita emissions rather than on the total emissions, which are high in Annex I Parties than in Non-Annex I Parties. The UNFCCC requires the Annex I Parties comprising developed countries to take the lead in combatting climate change and its adverse effects, and to reduce their emissions back to 1990 levels by the year 2000 through voluntary measures. Non-Annex I Parties comprising developing countries are required only to take climate change considerations into account, to the extent feasible, when formulating their social, economic and environmental policies, and employ measures with a view to mitigate or to adapt to climate change.

The UNFCCC also requires all parties to submit periodic national communications (NC) incorporating GHG inventories of sources and sinks, and description of measures taken towards mitigation and adaptation as well as information on training, research, capacity building and public awareness programmes on climate change. Annex I Parties are required to submit their NCs regularly while Non-Annex I Parties are required to submit their NCs as and when funds are made available for that purpose. Sri Lanka has submitted only two NCs so far, the Initial NC in 2000 and the second NC in 2011. The third NC is under preparation beginning 2016 and is expected to be finalized in 2020, for which the Global Environment Fund contributed USD 654,300 (UNDP Website). The Ministry of Environment is the National Focal Point for UNFCCC in Sri Lanka responsible for preparing the NCs.

 

KYOTO PROTOCOL ON CLIMATE CHANGE

With growing evidence of climate change coming from all parts of the globe by way of increased frequency of extreme climatic events such as floods, droughts, heavy storms; increasing rates of glacier melting; change of rainfall patterns and a significant increase in global average temperature in recent years, and recognizing that the commitment for developed countries to reduce their emission levels back to 1990 levels is insufficient, prompted the Parties to UNFCCC to adopt the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change (KPCC) in 1997 which made it mandatory for Annex I Parties to reduce their GHG emissions to levels below their 1990 levels. Each country was assigned a specific reduction commitment to be achieved within the 5-year period of 2008-2012 below their 1990 levels of emissions, with an average reduction commitment of 5%.

During the 5-year period 2008-2012, many countries, particularly the European countries, were successful in reducing their emissions as required. It is noteworthy that several industrialized developing countries such as China, India and Brazil categorized as Non-Annex I Parties are exempted from any emission reduction commitments because they have low per capita emissions, while at the same time, they emit high overall amounts of GHGs. This was a thorny issue not acceptable to countries like USA, Canada and Japan who wanted these high emitting countries also to undertake reduction commitments, which countries like China and India vehemently opposed. This dispute resulted in these developed countries withdrawing from the KPCC.

 

COPENHAGEN ACCORD

At the 15th Conference of Parties (COP15) held in Copenhagen in 2009, UNFCCC was due to decide on the terms of extension of KPCC beyond 2012 and several proposals were in the agenda. Several developed countries including those in the European Union were willing to undertake enhanced reductions. A committee comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) was appointed to work out the details and present its recommendations to the Plenary. They had almost finalized a scheme recommending enhanced mandatory commitments to be undertaken by developed countries during the 5-year period 2013-2017 by closing time of the last day of the conference.

However, at the 11th hour, in an unprecedented move, USA President Barack Obama barged into the closed room where the BRICS committee meeting was held and made an intervention, which no one else would dared to have done. He announced that USA would pledge to get developed countries to mobilize funds to the extent of USD 100 billion a year by 2020 to finance projects in developing countries that would reduce their emissions. Trusting President Obama’s word, both China and India changed their stance hitherto held and agreed to undertake voluntary reduction commitments.

President Obama took a step further and proposed that even the developed countries should undertake only voluntary emission reductions rather than mandatory reductions as decided by KPCC. Surprisingly, the BRICS committee agreed to this proposal without raising any objection. He emphasized that developed countries should be left to decide to what extent they should reduce carbon emissions without being prompted by the KPCC. It may be noted that Annex I Parties had collectively reduced GHG emissions from fossil fuel burning from 30,950 MtCO2Eq in 1990 to 25,647 MtCO2Eq in 2018, a 17.1% reduction, with 11 Parties non-complying (UNFCCC website).

The intervention made by President Obama was tabled at the Plenary where it was taken note of, but was incorporated into the COP15 report which said that “developed countries commit to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries. This funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance. A significant portion of such funding should flow through the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund (GCF) to be established”. This arrangement was referred to as the Copenhagen Accord (CA). It was further decided that the modality of implementation of this Accord should be completed by 2015.

 

PARIS AGREEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE

With the proposal made at COP15 in 2009, UNFCCC took 6 years of negotiations for a consensus to be reached on the modality of implementing the CA. Finally, a decision was made in this regard at COP21 held in Paris in 2015, resulting in the adoption of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change (PACC). This incorporated the mandate given in the CA for undertaking voluntary emission reductions applicable to all countries. Developing countries agreed for undertaking these commitments on the understanding that they would receive adequate financial assistance for implementing projects that would reduce their emissions. This was clearly evident from speeches made by Heads of States at the Paris conference including Sri Lanka’s.

The key aim of PACC is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise within this century well below 2 degrees Celsius (C) above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5o C. To reach this goal, appropriate financial flows, a new technology framework and an enhanced capacity building framework are expected to be put in place, thus supporting action by developing countries, in line with their own national objectives.

During the COP21, many heads of states made pledges for providing finances during 2016-2020, totaling USD 48 billion. Among the key contributors are Japan (USD 10B), EU (USD 11B), UK (USD 8.7B), France (USD 6.6B), Italy (USD 4 B) and USA (USD 4B) (Ref: UNFCCC website). It is noteworthy that USA which spearhead the abolition of mandatory emission reductions by developed countries and getting developing countries on board with them on the promise of mobilizing USD 100 billion annually by 2020, pledged only a paltry USD 4 billion contributions up to 2020. However, according to UNFCCC website, the actual amount received from USA to date amounted to only USD 1 billion.

In addition, several multilateral banks operating in Asia, Africa and globally pledged finances up to USD 160 billion by 2020. In addition, the European Investment Bank provided €3 billion in climate finance to developing countries in 2018. To date, the GCF is supporting 143 projects in countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America, Africa and Asia-Pacific covering mitigation, adaptation and cross-cutting sectors, for which USD 21 billion has been allocated. However, the actual amount collected to date is only USD 10 billion (GCF Website).

 

WITHDRAWAL FROM PARIS AGREEMENT BY PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP

President Donald Trump who assumed duties in January 1917 felt that the PACC is disadvantageous to USA bringing benefits to other countries at the expense of American tax payers. He said this in a press briefing held at the White House Rose Garden on 01.06.2017. He further said that Americans stand to lose over 2.5 million jobs by 2025, reduced wages, shuttered factories affecting the economy badly if USA stayed in the PACC. He also said that under the PACC, China and India will be allowed to build more coal power plants while USA is debarred from building any, and that USA’s vast energy resources will have to be kept under lock and key without being able to generate employment for people in exploiting these resources.

One assertion made by President Trump was that no one knows where the money collected from developed countries go to. The Green Climate Fund’s website lists exactly 143 projects that are underway in Non-Annex I countries. The total amounts for each are listed, along with the anticipated benefits. It is obvious that President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the PACC is based on misinformation which probably would have been provided by his advisers.

President Obama, on the other hand, said at the COP21 meeting where the PACC was adopted that USA had taken many initiatives to reduce carbon emissions including building many renewable energy projects such as wind and solar energy plants, adopting energy efficiency systems and introducing standards on power plant emissions and phasing out fossil fuel use, and that these activities have created a large number of new employment opportunities while at the same time keeping the environment clean.

Though President Trump wanted to withdraw from the PACC with immediate effect as announced at the press briefing held in June 2017, the official notification of withdrawal was submitted to the UNFCCC Secretariat only on 04.11.2019. As such, the withdrawal took effect only on 04.11.2020, as per PACC provisions. On this occasion, Chile, France, Italy, UK and UN Climate Change issued the following joint statement on 04.11.2020.

“On 12 December we will be celebrating the five-year anniversary of the Paris Agreement. We must ensure that it is implemented in full. We note with regret that the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement has formally come into effect today. As we look towards COP26 in Glasgow, we remain committed to working with all US stakeholders and partners around the world to accelerate climate action, and with all signatories to ensure the full implementation of the Paris Agreement” (UNFCCC website).

 

PRESIDENT-ELECT JOE BIDEN’S DECISION TO RE-ENTER PARIS AGREEMENT

The international community would welcome the decision made by PE Biden to re-enter the Paris Agreement. He should be conscious of the fact that the entire group of developing countries gave their consent to undertake emission reductions placing trust on President Obama’s assurance that he would mobilize USD 100 billion annually up to 2020 to meet the costs incurred by them in undertaking projects that will reduce carbon emissions.

If this pledge is kept, by now there should be USD 500 billion collected in climate funds, but the amount collected so far does not come anywhere close to this figure as described before. With President Trump withdrawing from the PACC, all these developing countries who undertook commitments were left high and dry. PE Biden will therefore have to take off from where President Obama left for collecting funds for climate financing. To honour the pledge given by President Obama, PE Biden has an obligation to make a substantial contribution towards the climate fund from USA sources including the private sector.

Even within USA, emission reduction targets made by President Obama set in 2009 in Copenhagen, as announced in his speech made at COP21 meeting, that USA will reduce its carbon emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 has not been kept. According to GHG emission data on fossil fuel burning posted in the UNFCCC website, the reduction between 2005 value of 7,392 MtCO2Eq and 2018 value of 6,676 MtCO2Eq (the latest available) is only 9.67% which is far below the target. Though he has set a new target of 26 – 28 % reduction below 2005 levels by 2025, it is unlikely this target would be met, unless PE Biden makes a concerted effort to enhance the emission reductions.

 

CONCLUSION

Biden’s decision to re-enter the PACC and continue its original financial commitments will certainly restore the confidence the developing countries had in the US as a leading partner in making the planet Earth a safe place for the future generations. People should be able to live without fear of adverse impacts of climate change such as flooding, land-slides, draughts and sea level rise inundating low-lying coastal habitats. These impacts are felt in all countries irrespective whether they are developed or developing, but the developing countries lack the adaptive capacity to meet the adverse impacts.

The international community looks forward to seeing Biden take initiatives to fulfill the commitments made by the US and expects him to meet these commitments pledged by President Obama in encourage the developing countries to undertake reduction commitments. The US could also demonstrate its commitment to prosperity of nations while ensuring rights of people to live in peace by removing unjust trade sanctions imposed on countries having different ideologies. Biden could bring about a change and make history.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

How many more must die before Sri Lanka fixes its killer roads?

Published

on

Kotmale bus accident

On the morning of May 11, 2025, the quiet hills of Ramboda were pierced by the wails of sirens and the cries of survivors. A Sri Lanka Transport Board (SLTB) bus, en route from Kataragama to Kurunegala via Nuwara Eliya, veered off the winding road and plunged down a deep precipice in the Garandiella area. At least 23 people lost their lives and more than 35 were injured—some critically.

The nation mourned. But this wasn’t merely an isolated accident. It was a brutal reminder of Sri Lanka’s long-standing and worsening road safety crisis––one where the poor pay the highest price, and systemic neglect continues to endanger thousands every day.

A national epidemic

According to the Central Bank of Sri Lanka’s 2023 Road Safety Report, buses and other passenger vehicles are involved in 60% of fatalities while motorcycles account for 35% of reported accidents. Though three-wheelers are often criticised in the media, they contribute to only 12% of all accidents. The focus, however, remains disproportionately on smaller vehicles—ignoring the real danger posed by larger, state-run and private buses.

The Ramboda incident reflects what transport experts and road safety advocates have long warned about: that Sri Lanka’s road accident problem is not primarily about vehicle type, but about systemic failure. And the victims—more often than not—are those who rely on public transport because they have no other choice.

One of the biggest contributors to the frequency and severity of road accidents is Sri Lanka’s crumbling infrastructure. A 2023 report by the Sri Lanka Road Development Authority (SLRDA) noted that nearly 40% of the country’s road network is in poor or very poor condition. In rural and hilly areas, this figure is likely higher. Potholes, broken shoulders, eroded markings, and inadequate lighting are all too common. In mountainous terrain like Ramboda, these conditions can be fatal.

Even worse, since 2015, road development has effectively stagnated. Although the Mahinda Rajapaksa administration was often criticised for its ambitious infrastructure drive, it left behind a network of wide, well-lit highways and urban improvements. The subsequent administrations not only failed to continue this momentum, but actively reversed course in some instances—most notably, with the cancellation of the Light Rail Transit (LRT) project in Colombo, which had been poised to modernise urban mobility and reduce congestion.

Instead of scaling up, Sri Lanka scaled down. Maintenance budgets were slashed, long-term projects shelved, and development planning took a back seat to short-term political calculations. Roads deteriorated, traffic congestion worsened, and safety standards eroded.

Dangerous drivers

Infrastructure is only part of the story. Human behaviour plays a significant role too—and Sri Lanka’s roads often mirror the lawlessness that prevails off them.

A 2022 survey by the Sri Lanka Road Safety Council revealed alarming patterns in driver behaviour: 45% of accidents involved drivers under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and 40% were attributed to speeding. These figures reflect not just recklessness, but a dangerous culture of impunity.

The legal blood alcohol limit for drivers in Sri Lanka is 0.08%, but enforcement remains lax, particularly in rural areas and during off-peak hours. There is no consistent system of random breath testing, and police checkpoints are often limited to high-profile holidays or urban areas.

The same lack of enforcement applies to speeding, tailgating, overtaking on blind corners, and ignoring traffic signals. While the law technically provides for penalties, in practice, enforcement is selective at best. Even SLTB bus drivers—tasked with transporting hundreds daily—are known for aggressive and erratic driving. The Ramboda bus is reported to have been speeding on a dangerously narrow bend, a pattern that has become disturbingly common.

Public buses, both state-run and private, are some of the most dangerous vehicles on the road today—not just due to their size, but because of operational cultures that prioritise speed over safety. Competition for passengers, poor driver training, minimal vehicle maintenance, and weak regulatory oversight have created a deadly combination.

Do they not deserve better?

Most people who travel in SLTB buses are from lower-income backgrounds. They rely on public transportation not by choice, but by necessity. A factory worker in Nuwara Eliya, a schoolteacher in Bandarawela, or a daily wage earner commuting between towns—all are bound to a public transport system that is increasingly unreliable and unsafe.

Sri Lanka’s social contract has failed its most vulnerable. The poor are expected to brave substandard buses on crumbling roads, driven by underpaid and undertrained drivers, often in hazardous weather and terrain. In many rural areas, buses are lifelines. When one crashes, it is not merely a tragedy—it’s a profound injustice.

Had the LRT system gone forward, had road maintenance been prioritised, had reckless drivers been reined in through strict enforcement, how many lives could have been saved?

Experts agree that the solution lies in a combination of infrastructure investment, driver education, and law enforcement reform. The Sri Lanka Road Safety Council has repeatedly called for mandatory road safety training, particularly for commercial drivers. Such training should cover not just traffic laws, but also defensive driving, fatigue management, and the dangers of DUI.

Enforcement, too, needs a dramatic overhaul. License suspensions, large fines, and jail time for repeat offenders must become the norm—not the exception. A centralised traffic violation database could prevent habitual offenders from slipping through the cracks.

And critically, investment in infrastructure must resume—not in flashy mega-projects for political gain, but in safe, functional, and equitable roads and transit systems. The re-introduction of the LRT or similar mass transit projects should be seriously reconsidered, especially in urban centers where congestion is growing and road space is limited.

The misunderstood three-wheeler

On the other hand, while three-wheelers are frequently vilified in public discourse and media narratives for reckless driving, the data tells a different story. According to the Central Bank’s 2023 Road Safety Report, they account for just 12% of all road accidents—a fraction compared to the 60% involving buses and other passenger vehicles, and the 35% attributed to motorcycles. Yet, disproportionate attention continues to be directed at three-wheelers, conveniently shifting focus away from the far greater risks posed by large, state-run and private buses.

What often goes unacknowledged is the essential role three-wheelers play in Sri Lanka’s transport ecosystem, particularly in remote and rural areas where reliable public transport is virtually nonexistent. For residents of small towns and isolated villages in the hill country, three-wheelers are not a luxury—they are a necessity. Affordable, nimble, and capable of navigating narrow, winding roads where buses cannot operate, these vehicles have become the primary mode of short-distance travel for countless Sri Lankans.

Even more importantly, in the aftermath of road accidents—especially in remote regions like Ramboda—it is often the three-wheeler drivers who are the first to respond. When tragedy strikes, they ferry the injured to hospitals, assist with rescue efforts, and offer immediate aid long before official emergency services arrive. This community-centered, grassroots role is rarely acknowledged in national conversations about road safety, yet it remains a vital, life-saving contribution.

Rather than treating three-wheelers as a problem to be blamed, the government should recognise their indispensable value and work towards integrating them more effectively and safely into the national transport framework. Regularising the sector through measures such as mandatory driver training programmes, periodic vehicle safety checks, and the enforcement of standardised operating licenses could improve safety without displacing an essential service. Additionally, designating official three-wheeler stands, particularly in high-risk or high-traffic areas, and incentivising drivers who maintain clean safety records would help create a safer, more accountable environment for both passengers and pedestrians.

Moving beyond the blame game

It is time for us to move beyond the tired narrative that blames specific vehicles—motorcycles, three-wheelers, or buses—for the carnage on Sri Lanka’s roads. The problem is not the mode of transport. It is the system that surrounds it.

When buses are poorly maintained, roads are not repaired, drivers are not trained, and laws are not enforced, tragedy becomes inevitable. Blaming a single vehicle type does nothing to address these root causes.

The real question is: Do we have the political will to fix this? Or will Sri Lanka continue to count the dead—accident after accident—while doing little more than issuing condolences?

The Ramboda accident was not the first. It won’t be the last. But it should be the turning point.Let this be the moment we stop pointing fingers—and start fixing the road.

(The writer is an Attorney-at-Law with over a decade of experience specializing in civil law, a former Board Member of the Office of Missing Persons, and a former Legal Director of the Central Cultural Fund. He holds an LLM in International Business Law and resides in Battaramulla, where he experiences the daily challenges of commuting to Hulftsdorp, providing him with a unique perspective on Sri Lanka’s road safety issues.)

By Sampath Perera

Continue Reading

Features

J’accuse – Need for streamlined investigation of corruption in former President’s office

Published

on

 Though the government is moving more slowly on corruption than I would have liked, it is moving, which is more than can be said for its predecessors. I remember how sad I was when Yahapalanaya did very little, except for political advantage, about the corruption it had highlighted in the election campaign in which I had so foolishly joined; but the reason became clear with the bond scam, when the Ranil Wickremesinghe administration rose to heights of corruption that surpassed, in convoluted ingenuity, anything the Mahinda Rajapaksa government could have achieved. Thus far the present government is clean, and that will make its task much easier.

I hope then that the slow but steady progress of this government in investigation will bear fruit. But at the same time, I think it would also be good if it looked at instances when corruption was avoided. The horrors of the visa scam, in which the Controller General of Immigration seems to have connived with his political masters, suggest how important it is to also praise those civil servants who resist pressures.

With regard to the visa scam, I had thought Tiran Alles largely responsible, but perhaps I have done the man an injustice – if that were conceivable – and the fountainhead of the matter was the President. I now think this the more likely, having heard about a Civil Servant who did stand up against the political pressures brought upon him. If this government were to look into the matter, and recognise his integrity and courage, perhaps that would prompt the former Controller General of Immigration and Emigration too to come clean and turn Crown Witness, having accepted a compounded penalty for anything he might have done wrong.

It can be difficult to resist pressure. That must be understood though it is no reason to excuse such conduct. But it is therefore more essential to praise the virtuous, such as the former Secretary to the Ministry of Health, Dr Palitha Mahipala. I had heard of him earlier, and I am sorry he was removed, though I have also heard good things about his successor, so there is no reason to bring him back. But perhaps he could be entrusted with greater responsibilities, and awarded some sort of honour in encouragement of those with courage.

One of the notable things Dr Mahipala did was to resist pressure brought upon him to award a contract to Francis Maude, a British crony of the President. This was to design a supply chain management for pharmaceuticals. A system for this was already being designed by the Asian Development Bank, but when told about this the authorities had nevertheless insisted.

The then Secretary to the Prime Minister cannot absolve himself of the responsibility for having asked the Ministry of Health to prepare a stunningly expensive MoU that was quite unnecessary.

But his claim was that he had been introduced to the Britisher by a top aide of the President. This rings true for it was the President who first wished Maude upon the country. It was after all Ranil Wickremesinghe who, a year after he became President, announced that, to boost state revenue, Maude had been invited ‘to visit Sri Lanka and share his insights on sectoral reform’.

When he became a Minister under David Cameron, Maude’s responsibilities included ‘public service efficiency and transparency’. There seems to have been nothing about revenue generation, though the President’s statement claimed that ‘Sri Lanka must explore new avenues for increasing income tax revenues…He expressed concern over not only the neglect of public revenue but also the unrestricted spending of public funds on non-beneficial activities’.

He ‘called for an extensive media campaign to educate the public’ but this did not happen, doubtless because transparency went by the board, in his antics, including the demand, whoever prompted it, that Maude be to do something already done. Surely, this comes under the heading of unrestricted spending of public funds on non-beneficial activities, and it is difficult to believe that top government officials connived at promoting this while Ranil would have expressed concern had he known what they were up to.

Nothing further is recorded of Ranil’s original trumpeting of Maude’s virtues, and far from being there to provide advice on the basis of his experience in government, he seems to have been trawling for business for the firm he had set up on leaving politics, for it was with that private agency that the MoU was urged.

Thankfully, Dr Mahipala resisted pressure, and that plot came to nothing. But it should not be forgotten, and the government would do well to question those responsible for what happened, after speaking to Dr Mahipala and looking at the file.

Indeed, given the amount of corruption that can be traced to the President’s Office, it would make sense for the government to institute a Commission of Inquiry to look into what happened in that period of intensive corruption. It should be subject to judicial appeal, but I have no doubt that incisive questioning of those who ran that place would lead to enough information to institute prosecutions, and financial recompense for the abuses that occurred.

by Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha

Continue Reading

Features

Trump’s Press Secretary; no attention to the health crisis

Published

on

In her Cry on 25 April, Cassandra wrote this in her section on Trump’s moves to Make America Great Again – MAGA. “The latest was heard on BBC news on Wednesday 16. A fluff of a blonde White House press secretary by name of Karoline Leavitt announces that President Trump expects Harvard University to apologise to him for the continuing tolerance of anti-Semitism by the university. And that little blonde fluff adds ‘And they should.’  Didn’t Cass guffaw, but bitterly.  That’s Trump vs Harvard.”

Karoline Leavitt

This young blonde has been making waves ever since, so much so that night shows in the US have spoken of her, and not well. Jimmy Kimmel arranged a dialogue between Karoline and Mark Carney, PM of Canada, when he recently visited the US. She insulted him by saying he did not know what democracy was and that Canada would benefit by becoming the 51st of the US. Carney vowed Canada was not for sale and never would be. The interview which was described in a video which I watched got hotter, Carney became cooler and Karoline rattled until she shot up and left the room. The usually noisy crowd that collects to listen to Kimmel roared – disdain.

Cass had to ferret more about her, so she went to the Internet.  Born in 1997, Karoline Leavitt studied politics and communication at Saint Anselm College, which she entered on a games scholarship. She interned in the White House as an apprentice press secretary and was named a press secretary in Trump‘s first term. After Trump’s loss in 2020, she became a communications director for New York. She was the Republican candidate in the US House of Reps election for New Hampshire in 2022 but lost. She was much in Trump’s campaign against Biden’s winning and then served as a spokeswoman for MAGA Inc. In November 2024, Trump named her his White House Press Secretary, the youngest to hold this post in US history. All this seems to have gone to her blonde head!

Mosquitoes making life hell in Colombo

These pests are breeding like mad in and around Colombo and other parts of the country too. We can be tolerant of nature and its creatures, but the mosquito now is deadly. She passes on the dreaded diseases of chikungunya and dengue; the former debilitating for months after the grueling ache in bones is abated as the infection recedes. Dengue can be fatal if one’s platelet count goes below the red line.

The crux of the near pandemic of these two diseases is that infection and prevalence of the two could be greatly reduced by control of the carrier of the infection – The Mosquito. And on whom rests the responsibility of controlling the breeding of mosquitoes? On You and Me.  But both of these entities are often careless, and totally non-caring about keeping their premises clean and of course eliminating all breeding spots for flying pests. Does the responsibility end there? Not upon your life! The buck moves on and lands on the public health inspectors, the garbage removers, the fumigators. Their boss who sees to them working properly is the Medical Officer of Health. And he is part of the Colombo Municipal Council that has the responsibility of looking to the health of people within the MC.

The spread of the two diseases mentioned is proof that the above persons and establishments are NOT doing the work they should be doing.

It is a proven fact that just before a change in personnel in the country, or a MC or a Pradeshiya Sabha, with a general election or local government election in the near future, most work stops in government offices or in local government establishments as the case may be.  Workers get the disease of ennui; do minimum work until new bosses take over.

This definitely has happened in Colombo.   Cass lives in Colombo 3. Quite frequent fumigation stopped some time ago. About two weeks ago she heard the process and smelled the fumes. Then nothing and mosquitoes breeding with the infrequent rain and no repellents or cleaning of premises. She phoned the MOH’s office on Thursday last week. Was promised fumigation. Nothing.

We are in a serious situation but no Municipal Council action. Politics is to blame here too. The SJB is trying to grab control of the Colombo MC and people are falling prey to the two diseases. All politicians shout it’s all for the people they enter politics, etc. The NPP has definitely shown concern for the public and have at least to a large extent eliminated corruption in public life. They have a woman candidate for Mayor who sure seems to be able to do a very good job. Her concern seems to be the people. But no. A power struggle goes on and its root cause: selfishness and non-caring of the good of the people.  And for more than a week, the personnel from the MOH are looking on as more people suffer due to dirty surroundings.

Garbage is collected from her area on Tuesdays and Saturdays with paper, etc., on Thursdays. Tuesday 13 was a holiday but garbage was put out for collection. Not done. At noon, she phoned a supervisor of the cleaning company concerned only to ask whether the workers had a day off. Garbage was removed almost immediately. That is concern, efficiency and serving the public.

As Cass said, Colombo is in near crisis with two mosquito borne diseases mowing down people drastically. And nothing is being done by the officers who are given the responsibility of seeing to the cleanliness of the city and its suburbs.

Continue Reading

Trending