Orissa MPs can do better by asking for royalty of Iron Ore to be linked 80% of world price.

It is really commendable that MPs from Orissa have stood up at long last in the parliament on the IIT issue and made it an issue of it.
As we know the protest has not yielded any result, at least immediately. Center has gotten accustomed to a an acquiescing Orissa, with little or no protest as much as a squeak.
My suggestion to them would be: don’t waste your energy in begging. I was checking yesterday and found that 46.7 million tons of Iron Ore have been raised last year from the mines of Orissa. If we could charge the world market price to the buyers we would have earned:
($84.4-$10)*46.5 million =$3.5 billion $$. Where $10 is the raising cost.
If we get this money where ever then GOO can have 15 – Rs. 1000 crore IITs. And if we can collaborate with MPs of Jharkhand and 36 garh, we will be in a position like OPEC countries to pay our way to developed condition.

Now some one may ask me, how do we get this done? This is money that the mine licensee are minting – how does Govt of Orissa /36 Garh / Jharkhand do it? My answer is through OMC. Now even if the cost is $15 due it’s inefficient & higher cost ways (not corrupt) the money can be given back or donated to GOO prescribed causes and spent on the mining areas for their development. There will be enough, Rs.15000 crores earning for every cause in Orissa. If we get $60 as royalty - there still will be $25 for mining and transportation. It is OK to have the pit head steel plant but that they can be given the lisence so the state gets it's $60 or 80% of world market price which ever is greater. Posco/ Mittal or TATAs will still have 5% advantage over others to locate in Orissa or 36 Garh or Jharkhand, considering there is a 15% disadvantage of backward area(infrastructure).

Let the MPs do us a favor, demand and raise the Royalty to 80% of the world Ore price(thus link it to the same permanently and GOO ensure that there is no stealing of Ore from the mines as prevelant. And Orissa will have money for everything and to spare. We need to spend the money to make our 7,011 high schools were functioning in the State(now 7800) Oriya medium High schools, 44,416 Primary Schools, 14.233 Upper Primary Schools, comparable to the English medium schools or better like it was in 50s and 60s, when a Purusottampur High School produced a topper in High School Certificate examination. (http://orissadiary.com/orissa_education/orissa_education.htm)
An educated citizenry can take care of themselves.
Best wishes,

Sandip

For People and Planet - Al Gore and David Blood

For People and Planet Al Gore and David Blood");' href="javascript:void(0);">Al Gore and David Blood. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Mar 28, 2006. pg. A.20 Abstract (Document Summary)

The industrial revolution brought enormous prosperity, but it also introduced unsustainable business practices. Our current system for accounting was principally established in the 1930s by Lord Keynes and the creation of "national accounts" (the backbone of today's gross domestic product). While this system was precise in its ability to account for capital goods, it was imprecise in its ability to account for natural and human resources because it assumed them to be limitless. This, in part, explains why our current model of economic development is hard-wired to externalize as many costs as possible. The interests of shareholders, over time, will be best served by companies that maximize their financial performance by strategically managing their economic, social, environmental and ethical performance. This is increasingly true as we confront the limits of our ecological system to hold up under current patterns of use. "License to operate" can no longer be taken for granted by business as challenges such as climate change, HIV/AIDS, water scarcity and poverty have reached a point where civil society is demanding a response from business and government. The "polluter pays" principle is just one example of how companies can be held accountable for the full costs of doing business. Now, more than ever, factors beyond the scope of Keynes's national accounts are directly affecting a company's ability to generate revenues, manage risks, and sustain competitive advantage. There are many examples of the growing acceptance of this view.

Full Text (865 words)

(c) 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission. Capitalism and sustainability are deeply and increasingly interrelated. After all, our economic activity is based on the use of natural and human resources. Not until we more broadly "price in" the external costs of investment decisions across all sectors will we have a sustainable economy and society. The industrial revolution brought enormous prosperity, but it also introduced unsustainable business practices. Our current system for accounting was principally established in the 1930s by Lord Keynes and the creation of "national accounts" (the backbone of today's gross domestic product). While this system was precise in its ability to account for capital goods, it was imprecise in its ability to account for natural and human resources because it assumed them to be limitless. This, in part, explains why our current model of economic development is hard-wired to externalize as many costs as possible. Externalities are costs created by industry but paid for by society. For example, pollution is an externality which is sometimes taxed by government in order to make the entity responsible "internalize" the full costs of production. Over the past century, companies have been rewarded financially for maximizing externalities in order to minimize costs. --- Today, the global context for business is clearly changing. "Capitalism is at a crossroads," says Stuart Hart, professor of management at Cornell University. We agree, and we think the financial markets have a significant opportunity to chart the way forward. In fact, we believe that sustainable development will be the primary driver of industrial and economic change over the next 50 years. The interests of shareholders, over time, will be best served by companies that maximize their financial performance by strategically managing their economic, social, environmental and ethical performance. This is increasingly true as we confront the limits of our ecological system to hold up under current patterns of use. "License to operate" can no longer be taken for granted by business as challenges such as climate change, HIV/AIDS, water scarcity and poverty have reached a point where civil society is demanding a response from business and government. The "polluter pays" principle is just one example of how companies can be held accountable for the full costs of doing business. Now, more than ever, factors beyond the scope of Keynes's national accounts are directly affecting a company's ability to generate revenues, manage risks, and sustain competitive advantage. There are many examples of the growing acceptance of this view. In the corporate sector, companies like General Electric are designing products to enable their clients to compete in a carbon- constrained world. Novo Nordisk is taking a holistic view of combating diabetes not only through treatment but also through prevention. And Whole Foods and others are addressing the demand for quality food by sourcing local and organic produce. Importantly, the business response is about making money for shareholders, not altruism. In the nongovernmental sector, organizations such as World Resources Institute, Transparency International, the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (Ceres) and AccountAbility are helping companies explore how best to align corporate responsibility with business strategy. Over the past five years we have seen markets begin to incorporate the external cost of carbon dioxide emissions. This is happening through pricing mechanisms (price per ton of carbon dioxide) and government-supported trading platforms such as the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme in Europe. Even without a regulatory framework in the U.S., voluntary markets are emerging, such as the Chicago Climate Exchange and state-level initiatives such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. These market mechanisms increasingly enable companies to calculate project returns and capital expenditures decisions with the price of carbon dioxide fully integrated. The investment community has also started to respond. For example, the Enhanced Analytics Initiative, an international collaboration between asset owners and managers, encourages investment research that considers the impact of extra-financial issues on long-term company performance. The Equator Principles, designed to help financial institutions manage environmental and social risk in project financing, have now been adopted by 40 banks which arrange over 75% of the world's project loans. In addition, the rise in shareholder activism and the growing debate on fiduciary responsibility, governance legislation and reporting requirements (such as the Global Reporting Initiative and the EU Business Review) indicate the mainstream incorporation of sustainability concerns. While we are seeing evidence of leading public companies adopting sustainable business practices in developed markets, there is still a long way to go to make sustainability fully integrated and therefore truly mainstream. A short-term focus still pervades both corporate and investment communities, which hinders long-term value creation. As some have said, "We are operating the Earth like it's a business in liquidation." More mechanisms to incorporate environmental and social externalities will be needed to enable capital markets to achieve their intended purpose -- to consistently allocate capital to its highest and best use for the good of the people and the planet. --- Mr. Gore, a former vice president of the United States, is chairman of Generation Investment Management. Mr. Blood, formerly head of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, is managing partner of Generation Investment Management, which he co-founded with Mr. Gore.

My letter to Indian Express..In response to Chitta's article as comment

I don't know whether our representative governments GOO and GOJ are dumb or are in the pockets of some big money bags like TATAS? Else this is a case of enlightened self-interest for the state of the state and we find no takers. WHY?
Else why the following is not done:
1. Why can't Orissa Assembly pass a resolution - unanimously - both the treasury benches and opposition together- to ask for market price for the ores and linked escalation in future? They may then give back a portion, say 15% to compensate the iTATAS, for the current inadequate infrastructural facilities? And this to be discontinued when the infrastructure is put in place.
2. Why can't the 21 MPs sit in for this in the parliament one day or unanimously protest or sign in a petition to the PM to the same tune as the state legislature? This will bring in more money per year than the current Orissa budget?
They saw the effect of NISER protests, and this is more beneficial for the state and it's people.
3. Why can't Orissa, 36 garh and Jharkhand Govt collaborate like OPEC rather than compete among each other, so POSCOS and TATAS compete for their favors and not themselves(as free market is supposed to be)?
5. Giving away Govt land or commons is another issue which should be kept in mind. Because people fight for their interest those issues are in the fore front. But it seems neither the MLAs or MPs are protectors of Govt interest. They give away public property for free - result rise of reincarnation of Jamindari system - the SEZs which is another important related issue, on which everyone is silent.