Of course, with civilization as we know it being built on oil, peak oil essentially equates to a doomsday scenario. With the prices of crude oil constantly hitting new heights as it has for the past decade, it is no wonder that many people have been predicting the advent of peak oil. After all, it is only logical to assume that prices rise when supply falls. In fact, 70% of people worldwide believe that the planet is going to run out of oil in their lifetime.

The current proven oil reserves worldwide is over 1.3 trillion barrels. A mere 15 years ago, it was barely a trillion. And in 1980, it was 650 billion barrels. Despite the high rate of consumption by today’s society, it seems like our reserves are not being depleted. To the contrary, with every decade the proved oil supplies increases dramatically. There are a few reasons for this.

Firstly, new oil reservoirs are constantly being discovered in places thought previously to be oil barren. As demand for oil constantly increases, there is a new and increased drive for exploration. Improved technology has also made it easier to find oil reserves, and also to drill further and deeper. And secondly, modern extraction and refining process has increased the percentage of recoverable oil from reservoirs.  And thirdly, while in the past it was believed that crude oil was the only source of petroleum, it has been proven otherwise.

Natural resources such as shales and coal also has large amounts of oil locked inside them, and while in the past it was economically and technologically unsound to extract this oil, the rising price of crude oil and new technology means that it has become more practical to do so. In fact, the amount of estimated global oil shales is estimated to be 3 times that of the current oil reserves, or nearly 4 trillion barrels.

So why are oil prices worldwide rising out of control? It has nothing to do with the threat of peak oil. Rather, the major oil producing countries have their capabilities constrained. Western intervention in oil-rich Middle East have lead to political and social turmoil there, thus limiting oil production and new investments. It is ironic that in the US’s attempt to gain control over oil, they have only managed to drive prices further up. In fact, oil production in Iraq is only operating at less than 50% of what its infrastructure would allow.

As i pointed out above, the myth about peak oil has contributed to the rising prices as well. As demand from the developing markets of China, India and Latin American grows, there is increasing doubt about the availability of future supply. In a free market, panic and speculation is unavoidable. A slight rise in price leads to mass hysteria in the stock market, driving the price up even further as stockholders try to minimize their loss.

The implication of higher oil prices is much more than just increased living costs on the part of the consumer. It has led to a redistribution of wealth towards oil rich countries. Saudi Arabia currently makes USD 1.3 billion solely based on its oil export industry. This has also led to a change in the balance of power globally,although it is not immediately obvious. Traditional superpowers, or rather the US and the UK now have much less influence in terms of foreign policies. Two decades ago at the end of the Cold War, Russia was effectively bankrupt. Now, with its newfound wealth derived from oil, its foreign policy has changed significantly. While in the 1990s, it basically sided with the US on global issues, now it has seen it fit to exert its influence in former Soviet Union territories. The recent skirmish in Georgia is the perfect example of this.

Crude oil is not just good for filling up gas tanks. It plays an important role in every industry, from manufacturing to healthcare. Higher oil prices means more expensive commodities, and that is where inflation creeps in. It is easy to find evidence that over the past few decades, the up and downs of inflation around the world directly corelates to oil prices.

As much as the media would like us to think otherwise, alternative forms of fuels are a long way off from being adopted by the mainstream in a world where fortunes are built and lost on oil. There is no way around it, oil is here to stay for a long time.

Compared to a few centuries ago, the most striking change in warfare is how much more impersonal it has become. In the past, the weapons available were mere swords or lances. This meant that armies faced each other face to face, man to man. Most casualties of war were therefore soldiers. The invention of gunpowder did not change much. While there was no longer a need for hand to hand combat, and in a sense war become more destructive, it still remained solely a matter between two opposing armies.

The usage of bombs on a large scale, in my opinion, was the real turning point in warfare. To put it simply, it was the point where wars stopped being a matter of army vs army, and became country vs country. It used to be considered taboo to bomb cities and residential areas, but when WWII rolled around it was considered normal. The large number of civilian casualties in that war was the result of not only new technology, but a changing attitude as well.

Inherently, humans find it hard to kill another human being. However, with the invention of bombs,missiles and other large scale weapons, it is now easy to forget about the lives that will be lost when they are used. Rather than actual human beings, they have now been reduced to mere statistics and numbers. It has become easy and impersonal to kill many people at once.

On a more recent level, there has been a shift towards the use of biological weapons. While they are often called the poor man’s nuclear bombs, they are often far more dangerous than conventional nuclear weapons. While the effects of a nuclear bomb are contained, a biological agent, when released, is out of the control of human hands. They have the potential to cause epidemics on a global scale. Futhurmore, while only a select few countries have the resources to run a nuclear program, access to chemicals to create biological weapons is much easier.

No doubt, technology has changed the face of war for the worse. However, the flipside is also true. Technology created by the military has also filtered down to civilian use, potentially aiding society as a whole. In the past century, the best example of this is that of the Manhattan Project. While it started out purely as a secret project to develop the first atomic bomb, information gleaned off the project has aided greatly in the drive to push nuclear energy as a viable form of alternative fuel. A more current example would be GPS. Originally created to aid soldiers in navigating jungles, it has seen more widespread civilian use, especially alongside vehicles.

The future of war does indeed look grim. Everything from space lasers to sonic cannons are in the works. It is quite ironic that although information warfare is more important than ever, weapons are still progressively getting more destructive. In the Iraq War, despite the US having valuable intel on the whereabouts of targets, their missile strikes and air raids still lead to the death of many civilians.

To conclude, it seems that in the context of the military, progress of technology is a double edged sword.

Although it has just 12% of the world population, Africa is estimated to have over 60% of the AIDS infected population. Each day, over 6,000 of those infected dies and another 11,000 are infected. There are a few reasons for the continual spread of AIDS in Africa.

At its very core, the main reason for the extent of reach of AIDs in Africa is due to the widespread poverty there. Much of the population lives in extremely unhygenic conditions and do not have access to basic needs like clean water. As a result of this, their immune system have been weakened and thus they are more susceptible to AIDS. Independently, each of the countries on the African continent are also heavily in debt. This means that rather than spending the government budget on healthcare or education, most of it is used to repay foreign creditors. This had lead to a decline in the basic healthcare infrastructure in Africa which is simply unable to cope with the ever-growing AIDS-infected population. Hospitals and clinics are already overcrowded and lack access to modern technology and medicine.

African nations consistently rank one of the worst when it comes to the income difference between the rich and the poor. This directly translates into inequality in basic healthcare as well. As a result of policies stemming from the World Bank, the health sector in Africa is mainly privatised. Subject to market forces, healthcare has degenerated into a privilege only the wealthy can afford. The poor is unable to afford the expensive treatment and medicine to slow the onset of AIDS, or even to go for checkups to determine if they are HIV positive.

Another factor is the inroads that Western pharmaceutical corporations have been making in Africa.Despite the fact that they have provided access to the necessary drugs needed to curb AIDS, as inherently these companies are still profit-driven, the prices of these drugs remain exorbitant, putting them out of reach for the majority of the population. Although there are much cheaper, generic drugs available that has the same effects, these companies holds the monopoly in the African countries, ensuring that they are not widely distributed. In fact, in March 2001, a coalition of pharmaceutical companies took South Africa to court over the change in a law that would allow local production and parallel importing of these low cost, generic AIDS medication. Due to public outcry however, the lawsuit was later dropped. No doubt, this was a major battle won for the African countries, but this has also gone to show the extent the Western companies would go to to protect their profits. Who is to say they would not attempt the same thing again in the future?

Education, or rather the lack of it has also contributed to the rising number of AIDS cases in Africa. As pointed out above, the budget that goes towards education is rather low. Only a small percentage of African children have the privilege to attend school where things like basic hygiene and STD prevention is taught. Many Africans living in the more rural population still think that AIDS is caused by poverty and has accepted it as part of their lives. Condoms are still not widely used as there is the traditional belief that it inhibits the ‘power of the male’. Up till recently, some African rulers have even outrightly refused to acknowledge that they have the problem of AIDS on their hands.

As can be seen, we are a long way off from even beginning to slow the spread of AIDS. Only with a combined global effort will things begin to change for the better.

There are the obvious consequences. Heavy industries and cars would produce large amounts of carbon monoxide, resulting in air pollution. It might be possible that in the razing of the natural habitats, some animals or fauna may become extinct. However, many people are missing the point entirely, which is that continued urbanization would pose a threat to the very city they live in.

In an urban environment, the climate is different from that of a natural habitat. The large amount of massed concrete and glass serves to act to absorb then emit heat, thus making the temperature much higher. The built up environment also retains fog, and a city is generally cloudier and rainer than its surrounding areas. While a climate change is only significant in the long run, some of the dangers of destroying natural habitats and replacing them with cities are much more immediate.

Construction and human activity disturbs the soil and hastens the speed at which they erode, increasing the possibility of landslides. While they are not a real threat in more built up areas, in some countries like Brazil, where even in major cities the majority of the residents lives in slums and squatters in the outskirts of the cities, any landslide would result in mass fatalities.

Another point is that unless proper storm sewers are built and maintained, flood is a very frequent and dangerous threat. As cities are generally situated in low lying areas, with the landscaping of the ground a severe storm or tidal wave would easily result in flooding. In New Orleans in 2007, while Hurricane Katrina was devastating enough, the real damage to the city came afterwards with flood levels continuing to rise over a peroid of days, and there was no avenue for the water to retreat.

While it is mainly a game of chance, there is the danger that a city may be built over a fault line and be prone to earthquakes. The 2008 Sichuan earthquake is a perfect example of this. Rapid urbanization has also led to shoddy construction of buildings and structures, leading to a higher death toll than necessary.

In today’s globalized world, however, urbanization is inevitable. So what measures can be taken to minimize disruption to the environment, as well as safeguard city-dwellers from natural disasters? One far-fetched, but interesting concept is that of a arcology. In short, arcologies are self sustaining megastructures, containing residential and commercial facilities. They are also designed to have an extremely high population density and minimize impact on the environment. A few concept plans have already been released, such as the Shimizu Pyramid and the X-Seed. While they are all technologically sound, the main barriers to actual construction of these megastructures are their cost.

For example, the X-Seed is 4000 metres high, and it can potentially accommodate 1 million residents. With its robust internal environment control, it would have a minimal impact on natural habitat. Its massive size would also mean that invulnurability to most natural habitats. However, it would cost somewhat between USD 300-900 billion, a prohibitive figure. In land starved countries such as Japan however, these concepts, if built would be a large step forward in the right direction.

The most apparent example of this can be seen in the US. The large amounts of immigrants from their respective countries did not lose their faith simply because they were relocated into a unfamiliar territory. While they did integrate to a certain extent into the society around them, their respective religion was, to put it simply, their tie back to their homeland. For example, going to pray would provide them with a sense of belonging and security among all the other devotees. On another level, while they could take their own religion for granted in their home country, in a country as multicultural as the US, for the first time they would begin to question their own religious identity and in time, reaffirm their faith.

Another factor of globalization and religion is how it has become extremely easy to spread religious ideals. A simple search on Google will lead you to dozens, even hundreds of religious sites built around gaining new converts. This is not just limited to the internet, but also movies and television too. In some ways, it is ironic how some religions are critical of certain forms of technology but yet are able to utilise them in such ways.

In essence, however, what is probably the most significant result of this change is that states are now unable to make policies and laws based on a religious basis without backlash. While not so much in the Western part of the world, this has especially made an impact in the Middle East. The citizens of these countries are now more widely exposed to the outside world and are made more aware of their own rights. For example, the women are able to recognize that they are being unfairly treated in the eyes of the law and can fight back accordingly.

On the flipside, the negative side of globalisation in the Middle East is that it has led to the clash between  two opposing civilisations. The laws of Islam is itself incompatible with what globalization advocates. It is easy to stereotype the whole of the Middle Eastern bloc as anti-US, but in reality most of the countries are stuck in a dilemma about how to balance the forces of change with that of their cultural believes.

Undeniably, however, it is globalization that has lead to the strengthening of Islamic fundamentalism. While it is inevitable that some of these ideals will creep into the societies trying to reject them, it is most probably that the clash of religion and globalization would furthur polarize the world into two seperate agents of change. The many terrorist cells and fundamental groups declaring Jihad now are in fact products of the US’s foreign policies and not because of the inherent differences in belief.

In light of all these, it is apparent that in trying to forge a global identity, religion cannot be ignored.

What is it about democracy that makes it so attractive? It is perhaps the fact that it offers the citizens a sense of being in control of the forces that govern them. Whether or not sovereignty truly belongs to the people or it is merely an illusion, as long as there is a semblance of political stability, it will quickly translate to economic growth and social order. The elected rulers have to be accountable to the citizens who put them in power or risk losing their credibility and position, thus giving them actual incentive to improve the lives of the people.

The very essence of democracy is supposedly rooted in finding the best person for the job and putting him or her into the position.  In light of this, how is it that frequently, it fails to produce the desired result? The answer lies in the fact that in the modern age, the best person for the job is not chosen, the most popular one is. To take American Idol as an example might seem to trivialise matters, but it is perhaps the most relevant one. The winner is never the best singer, it is the contestant who can best engage and connect with the audience and voters.

Browsing through the magazines section at HMV a while ago, I couldn’t help but burst out laughing at the issue of Rolling Stone that featured Obama on its cover. The issue’s headline was ‘A New Hope’, and the potrait of Obama was photoshopped to have him enveloped in a halo glow of light. Discarding the fact that I’m rooting for Obama aside, it certainly won’t be a stretch to imagine milions of young American voters being swayed on the implications of the magazine’s cover alone, and not by any of his advocated policies and such.

To touch on another point and keep the setting the same, imagine if I’m one of those young American voters and suppose Hilary had won the Democrats nomination. I can either forgo my vote, or go for whom i perceive to be the lesser of two evils. Funny thing here is, I just decided on my leader for the next 4 years, its still a free, democratic state!

In my opinion, the current situation in Iraq best exemplifies the failings of democracy. In a country as polarized as Iraq, democracy simply would not work no matter how hard you try. It will just give you a leader from the biggest tribe or ethnic group; in this case the Shi’a, and before long insurgents and uprisings would bring the country back to square one. As elitist as this sounds, it is situations like this which brings into question democracy’s one-man-one-vote system.

The pioneers of democracy, the ancient Greeks, only allowed land-owning males to vote. The logic behind this was that women and slaves were considered their property, and only they had the maturity and capability to decide the future of their society. Perhaps a similar system could be implemented nowadays. Everyone would still have a vote, but that of the educated would hold more sway. Looking back at history, many dictators were voted into power simply by tugging at the heartstrings of the lower strata of society. Hitler, Mugabe, Chavez. The list goes on. Is it really wise to leave the bulk of voting power in the hands of those who are most likely to be manipulated?

And to end this with a little food for thought; Ben Franklin, one of American’s founding fathers, once said: ‘Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch’. Ironic, isn’t it?

This powerful quote serves as the opening to Ridley Scott’s critically acclaimed Black Hawk Down. An earlier cut of the movie featured a different quote by T.S Elliott, ”All our ignorance brings us closer to death.” The discrepancy in tone and implied meaning between the two quotes is blatantly obvious. A look at the release date of the movie, however, will easily explain away this change. 28th December 2001, or slightly over three months since 9/11. The original quote simply would not justify the ‘War on Terror’ undertaken by the Pentagon since then.

Black Hawk Down resonated with its American audience on many levels. The sacrifice of the young, patriotic Rangers, the altruism of the Western states in aiding to overthrow a ‘corrupt regime’, and most dangerously, the concept of American democracy versus everyone else. While it doesn’t quite stoop down to the level of Pentagon propaganda, at best the film is an inaccurate portrayal of events.

The popular opinion is that UN and US intervention in Somalia in 1993 was essentially a humanitarian mission, carried out to feed the hungry and dispose of a violent warlord who had taken control of the country. While their efforts in these parts were indeed indisputable, events before 1993 put them in a new light. The above mentioned ‘violent warlord’, Mohammed Farrah Aidid, had overthrown the old president, pro-US Mohamed Siad Barre to take control of the country in 1991. Funnily enough, Barre was every bit of a dictator as Aidid. So to the US, what sets the two apart? Just like in the Persian Gulf War in 1990 and the Iraq War in the present day, oil is once again a central issue. Several major American oil companies had secured contracts to exploit oil-rich Somalia during Barre’s term, contracts which Aidid did not intend to honour. A pro-US Somalia would also mean that the US would have a secure ally along the crucial Gulf of Aden, consolidating their position in a continent they had little influence in.

Since the 1970s, the US had sent more than USD $50 million a year in arms and weapons to Somalia in order to help Barre retain power over the country and suppress its people. Of course, this was a crucial reason for the dire state of the country when the UN stepped in to intervene in the 1990s. If the money had instead gone into humanitarian and constructive aid, it would be a radically Somalia by then. It is thus unsurprising that the US ‘humanitarian’ operation’ was met by much resistance and hostility even by the general Somalian public, who rightfully saw the Americans as trying to revive the corrupt, oppressive Barre regime.

The biggest flaw of Black Hawk Down in portraying the Somalia operation is its inherent American bias. Through the entire movie, the only Somalian character that has a major part is that of the UN informant, with the rest of the natives reduced to a snarling, feral pack of barbarians out to kill the American soldiers. They serve only to come in waves, fodder to be gunned down by the vastly outnumbered Rangers. Another prime example of this bias comes from the scene when the second Black Hawk is gunned down. The entire crash is recreated in great detail, the fate of every soldier in the copter made clear. In the original book that the movie draws much of its information from, the author made it a point to mention the Somalian child crushed by the helicopter, something sorely lacking in the movie. None of the existing political situation is mentioned in the movie except again, the mass famine and civil war which US intervention aims to eradicate.

By the end of the movie, what the audience takes away is merely the American perspective of the battle, notably the bravery and heroism of the young Rangers. Unfortunately, while this heroism is indeed commendable, as long as it is not put into context by placing it amidst accurate portrayal of events, Black Hawk Down remains a typical Hollywood blockbuster in the veins of Pearl Harbor.

What exactly constitutes a white collar crime? While disagreements abound as to its exact definition, there are a few obvious examples. Embezzlement from one’s own workplace would classify for instance. Another would be issuing counterfeit cheques. More vague examples include insurance fraud and insider stock-trading. Whatever the crime might be, they are all marked by one point of similarity, which is the absence of any physical violence or threat.

It is a common misconception that the extent of spread of white collared crime is far less than that of traditional crime. Statistics, however, would prove this to be wrong. It is estimated by the FBI that white collar crime cost the US more than USD $300 billion annually, and that it is the largest-growing segment of criminal activity. So where does this misconception come from?

Firstly, the impact of a white collar crime is less apparent to the average citizen as compared to more violent crime. A gory murder-robbery would get more air time in the media simply because it is deemed to be more newsworthy. One would judge the safety level of his housing estate based on traditional crime rates, on the chances of them being victims of snatch theft. Secondly, the very nature of a white collar crime makes it less detectable. Many white collar criminals tend to get away scot free if they are smart enough to conceal their tracks properly. Furthurmore, even if these crimes are detected, companies would have a tendency to keep things hush to protect the integrity and image of the company and retain shareholders.

The threat posed by white collar crime to society, however, is no less diminished by its transparency. The accountancy scandal of energy company Enron is a prime example of this. Thousands of employees lost their jobs overnight, and the value of Enron stocks dropped from over USD$90 to a few cents as a result of the scandal. The many companies that Enron had invested in or were closely tied to were also heavily affected financially, if not ruined.

Other white collar crimes like money-laundering are a less direct, but no less dangerous threat to society. In almost all cases, the ‘dirty’ money that has to be laundered comes directly from illegal organisations eg. the Mafia or terrorist cells. The legal money that comes out the other end only serves to get pumped back into the organisation it came from, creating a vicious cycle.

The advent of globalization is one of the main reasons for the prolific rise in white collar crime. Evolving technology means that more and more money are being traded online, creating more opportunities to commit electronic crime. The means to do so is now widely available to anyone as theorotically, anyone with access to a computer is able to steal money electronically or reproduce things like legal documents.

The big obstacle when talking about white collar crime is the lack of any real means to stop its spread. There is clearly a double standard employed by law enforcement agencies when dealing with the two types of crimes. This can be explained away by the fact that those who commit white collar crime are more often than not, someone with influential power or money. Thus it is much harder for a court of law to punish them harshly. They also would have access to the best lawyers and attorneys, allowing them to wriggle out of their crime. Criminal penalties are also by nature harsher to those who commit acts of violence. The danger here is that there is a pressing need to address this situation before white-collar crime becomes even more commonplace, damaging society even more than traditional crime ever could.

From the Meiji Restoration in the latter half of the 19th century that led to its progress from a feudal society to a quasi-democracy, to the US influenced rebuild of its devastated post WWII economy,  Japan has undergone radical transformations in the past 150 years. By the same token, the effects of changing gender roles should be felt rather prominently in Japanese society as well. Before we look into if that is indeed the case, first we need to examine the role of Japanese woman in olden days.

Women living in feudal Japan had no legal rights whatsoever, and were considered property of their husbands or fathers. The advent of industrialization as a result of the Meiji Restoration did little to rectify the situation. While it lessened the authority held over them by male figures, many of the women were now exploited, especially in textile factories where they were held virtual prisoners amidst unhealthy working conditions. The Japanese government regarded motherhood as being a duty to the country, as such many of these women were mothers of multiple children as well.

It was only with Japan’s involvement in WWII that the role of women started to transform dramatically. The end of the war saw Japan in a social and economic anarchy, and more significantly a political vacuum. This vacuum will rapidly be filled by the form of democracy extolled by the US occupation force under the leadership of General MacArthur, which bode well for women and their rights. Among some of the changes implemented were the creation of co-ed high schools, fair labour laws and most significantly, female suffrage.

It is however notable that modern Japan is interestingly, one of the few countries in the world today which is clearly matriarchal. In a typical Japanese household, it is the woman that has the final say on the raising of the children, and often it is also her that control the finances. One reason for this might be that the average Japanese male is usually a salaryman who spends little time at home, his day usually occupied by long hours at work. Whatever the reason might be, it is undeniable that the role of women domestically has indeed transformed dramatically.

The role of the working woman however, is subject to more debate. While the vast majority of them are career minded before marriage, only a small percentage of them return to the workplace after marriage or childbirth, often in low-paying part-time service jobs. It is a fact that in most cases, women do not earn as much as men in the workplace and thus, most of them do not return to a full time job since it would not be advantageous or economically sound for the husband to stay home or to hire a nanny.

Women in the working world is also subject to much stereotype and discrimination. Typically, the Japanese career women will be chosen for their looks more than their ability, and their climb up the corporate ladder will be much harder than that of a man. While cliched and seemingly old, this has existed in all developed Asian countries as a result of our values.

So far, the role of the Japanese woman is extremely similar to that of most countries. There is however, one quirk that sets them apart. Many Japanese women are involved in politics at a grassroot level, protesting against everything from rising cost of food to environmental issues. Strangely enough, their success at this level has not translated to that of the bigger political arena. Again, this can only be attributed to the point of male discrimination.

In some ways, Japanese society is exemplified by the plight of the modern women themselves who seem to be victims of its past, trapped between the new and the old and trying to come to terms with this conflict.

To put it as simply as possible, Fairtrade is essentially a product certification system overseen by a non-profit body, allowing people to identify and purchase products that meets agreed labour and environmental standards. This certification mostly favors agricultural products i.e. fresh fruits,vegetables,rice and spices. Sales of Fairtrade-certified products hit US$ 3.6 billion in 2007 and with rapid growth amounting to nearly 50% a year, is expected to reach US$ 25 billion by 2020.

Digging a bit into its history, the rise of Fairtrade from a niche product to the mainstream is a relatively recent one. The first launch of a Fairtrade branded product was in 1988 in the Netherlands, where coffee from Mexico were sold under the name ‘Max Havelaar’, the protaganist in a significant 19th century novel rife with anti-colonial undertones. This initiative spread to several other markets in Europe and North America in the early 90s, and that was when it really took off.

How Fairtrade works is twofold-it has standards for farmers’ organizations as well as for hired labour. Standards for the former mainly involves making sure that there is a democratic system in place for decision making as well as aiding in economic growth, while the latter group is helped by checks ensuring that workers receive fair wages and that basic health and hygiene requirements are met.

The benefits of Fairtrade are seemingly obvious. Disadvantaged producers and farmers are now protected against exploitation, the big corporations have no choice but to give up a cut of their sizable profits which now goes towards these producers. But is there a downside to Fairtrade and is it really as beneficial and just as it would seem?

Lets take Nestle as a case study. Known to have a long standing ideological issue with the notion of fair trade, in 2005 the company introduced its own Fairtrade-certified coffee, citing market forces as one of the game-changers. Of course, the irony of this seems about apparent to everyone but Nestle itself. Isn’t the whole point of Fairtrade about going against market forces in order to help the disadvantaged? Nestle’s move in this case reeks of what one would only describe as a PR move, giving the company a eco-friendly image in spite of whatever reality might hold. This is further put into perspective by the fact that this new ‘Partner’s Blend’ accounts for less than 0.1 percent of Nestle’s total coffee productions, with the rest remaining outside Fairtrade certification.

The move to award Nestle’s new product with Fairtrade did not come without much criticism and controversy. However, the real issue at hand goes deeper than that, going to the roots of how Fairtrade operates. The certification is awarded to individual products, not companies, resulting in either the company being unjustly viewed as ethical by the public at large, or the Fairtrade mark being undermined and deemed useless. How Fairtrade will come to a compromise has yet to be seen.

Second, and more trivially, the price of Fairtrade products are generally much higher than that of similar products. While this is understandable, the breakdown is not transparent enough and there is always a danger that retailers are actually benefitting from the marked up prices as well. Even if they are not, the price difference may be a huge deterrence to some consumers

These two factors, are in my opinion, crucial to whether Fairtrade would be adopted in the mass market enough to make a true difference in the future.