Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Should Corporations Help Pay for Ebola Epidemics?

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Ebola outbreaks are linked to mining and deforestation. As it happens, global corporations are pulling resources out of West Africa like crazy - some are considered "Chinese", some "American" and others "European" - but really, they're all global. And they're all stripping the land, and by various means, setting Ebola free into the environment.

Dontcha think they should pay too? Why should taxpayers pick up the whole tab for this out-of-control epidemic?

West Africa needs manpower and resources immediately. If the Ebola epidemic is not stopped there, soon, then it likely will go pandemic. Plus, it's mutating so quickly now that any treatments or vaccines might be obsolete before production. Members rightly complain that the US can't pay for everything - and no other wealthy nations are offering the much-needed specialized biological disaster response teams or military escorts either. Yes, most countries are donating barrels of cash but it's just not enough.

Time for Captain Corporate to don that cute suit and come to the rescue. imho








edit on 4/9/14 by soficrow because: (no reason given)
edit on 4/9/14 by soficrow because: (no reason given)
edit on 4/9/14 by soficrow because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 07:00 PM
link   
They'd be heroes, reputation is everything besides a good product.

I d imagine that would improve company image A LOT.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Would you be willing to give corporations credit for feeding millions?
Jobs pay money thats used to buy food, and some of those jobs produce food.
Gotta take the good with the bad to....



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Large companies do things like provide flu shots and , on site day care just to name a few. I wonder why large companies in that area aren't donating the supplies needs to treat Ebola safely.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 07:56 PM
link   
It's probably a small thing, but around here it seems that when you talk corporations, it often means Walmart. From their site.


In 2013, Walmart and the Walmart Foundation gave $1.3 billion in cash and in-kind contributions around the world, surpassing 2012's total by more than $244 million. Global in-kind donations accounted for $1 billion, while $316.3 million was given in cash globally.


A billion three? That probably explains why they're so well respected here and elsewhere.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

Great...Now I wanna go shopping!



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: minkmouse

Dear minkmouse,

I'm so sorry. If it wasn't for my post, I'm sure you'd never want to go shopping. Just forget I said it.

(By the way, the entire US non-military aid for Africa in 2012 was 7.8 billion.) In my opinion, we're not paying enough attention to Africa, and not just over this plague.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

Africa has been plagued forever it seems and the world just looks away. This Ebola outbreak could just be the price the word has to pay for indifference.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Don't forget when Shell or BP go into Africa and disrupt an entire tribal region simply so they can pump crude from the ground. It's happened a few times with executives being publicly charged for murder by hiring war lords or mercenaries to displace local populations.

They should all have to spend a few weeks there every year, not in the hotels, but on the ground near their operations with the local populace.

Scratch that...

They should be forced to give out medicine at the ebola clinics

Heck, wait...

They should just get an Ebola milkshake.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

Dear soficrow,

Honestly, I'm asking for some clarification because I know nothing about ebola. No intention of starting an argument or disagreement.


Ebola outbreaks are linked to mining and deforestation. . . . And they're all stripping the land, and by various means, setting Ebola free into the environment.


Does ebola spread more slowly in areas with trees, or more quickly in areas with mines? I don't understand how that would affect transmission. I also don't understand the concept of "setting it free." Did it come from one of their labs which they carelessly secured?

Is this related to the fact that AIDS has been pretty much out of control in parts of Africa for quite a while? Could sexual practices play a big role in this?

Again, I know you're the expert, and I'm approaching you in that way.

By the way, I don't believe China will volunteer any significant aid, so it seems the West pays.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

The explanation given for deforestation and mining being linked to Ebola outbreaks is usually "habitat disruption" and the assumption that humans are brought into "closer contact" with 'rare' disease strains. imho - There's a good possibility the virus is sequestered in the soil and maybe mineral deposits, much like viruses are present in ice cores, and like the 1918 pandemic flu virus was found in a corpse.


H ow deforestation shares the blame for the Ebola epidemic

....The commonality between numerous outbreaks of Ebola, scientists say, is growing human activity and deforestation in previously untouched forests, bringing humans into closer contact with rare disease strains viral enough to precipitate an epidemic.

“The increase in Ebola outbreaks since 1994 is frequently associated with drastic changes in forest ecosystems in tropical Africa,” wrote researchers in a 2012 study in the Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research. “Extensive deforestation and human activities in the depth of the forests may have promoted direct or indirect contact between humans and a natural reservoir of the virus.”



RE: Aid from China. China started donating back in May, before many other nations did. From the International Business Times:


Ebola Outbreak 2014: China Adds To International Aid Efforts

....As health workers call on the international community for aid, China has joined the ranks of global NGOs and foreign governments in providing aid to the region, where its motivations stretch beyond the current tragedy.

Over the past decade, China has sent millions in aid and invested billions in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea, where the outbreak has hit hardest.

“There are ambivalent views on the presence of Chinese companies in Africa,” reads an August report from the Ethics Institute of South Africa exploring local attitudes toward Chinese investors on the continent. “Some portray China as a benevolent investor and friend of Africa. Others accuse China of being a ‘new colonial power,’ extracting resources for their own benefit with little return for Africa,” the report says.

China sent a series of shipments to affected areas over the course of the outbreak, one worth roughly $160,000 in early May, and another $4.9 million worth of supplies on Aug. 7, according to state-run news outlets, which also report that at least 20,000 Chinese nationals are present in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea.

Later, eight Chinese workers who had treated Ebola patients were quarantined in Sierra Leone.

On Aug. 10 China announced plans to send a team of nine specialists from its Center for Disease Control to train local medical staff and distribute supplies in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia. China Central Television (CCTV) reported that it was the first time the country has offered to help foreign nationals during a public health emergency.







edit on 4/9/14 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

Dear soficrow,

Thank you that was a great help in understanding. Nice work.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

I had thought perhaps the deforestation aspect had something to do with disruption of animal habitats, which if they are harbingers of the disease, would perhaps be more likely to come into contact with humans as they relocated to a new habitat. Does that sound like another possible scenario that could add to the spread of this?



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: new_here
a reply to: soficrow

I had thought perhaps the deforestation aspect had something to do with disruption of animal habitats, which if they are harbingers of the disease, would perhaps be more likely to come into contact with humans as they relocated to a new habitat. Does that sound like another possible scenario that could add to the spread of this?



Absolutely. And as I said above, imho - There's a good possibility the virus is sequestered in the soil and maybe mineral deposits, much like viruses are present in ice cores, and like the 1918 pandemic flu virus was found in a corpse.




Not to mention the labs.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: new_here
a reply to: charles1952

I don't get the lack of support/response here. Looks like a no-brainer to me. ....Just like a corporation is responsible for clean-up if they spill arsenic into a river, mining and other corporations responsible for deforestation/habitat destruction should help deal with the effects of their business letting viruses loose into the environment. It just makes sense.

?????


Do people honestly think taxpayers should foot the bill? And if we don't, just bite the bullet, suck it up and die when it gets here?


What am I missing?

edit on 5/9/14 by soficrow because: (no reason given)
edit on 5/9/14 by soficrow because: (no reason given)
edit on 5/9/14 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

Dear soficrow,

I'd like to offer an uneducated opinion. It's only value is that it shows how one person feels about it right now, with the information on hand. It may also help you understand why everyone isn't flocking immediately to the banner you have raised.

First, the ebola virus was hiding in the ground and when corporations disturbed the soil or cut down the trees, it was released.

I don't believe it.

Everything I've seen says monkey to human to human transmission. This is the first I've heard that it was just laying around and got kicked into the air for people to breathe in. Even if it were so, I don't see the corporations causing the spread of it. That's strictly human business.

Second, corporations should pay for it, not the taxpayer. This needs more explanation for me. Which corporations? Hallmark Cards? Grocery store chains? I suspect that there are many corporations with absolutely nothing to do with Africa. Why stick it on them?

And what happens when you announce, "Any corporation investing in Africa is responsible for cleaning up their diseases, and probably their insurgency movements, too?"

If you put the responsibility to pay on corporations, the money will most probably come out of the consumer's pockets in the form of higher prices. So, the Corporation gets stuck with being blamed for higher prices while collecting money for Africa.

And I have the feeling that this analysis is more about finding out who can pay for it, than who should. The governments of Africa told the corporations "If you give me lots of money, I'll give you permission to drill big holes in the ground." I would think that Africa has responsibility in this.

Granted, Africa probably doesn't have the ability to solve the problem, and help should come from other countries, but placing the responsibility entirely on corporations seems wrong. After all, are you suggesting that if a corporate funded project finds a cure, they should be able to keep and patent it? Of course not.

You seem to be saying that the world is facing still another emergency. If we raise taxes to pay for it, people won't like the government. If the government makes businesses pay for it, the businesses can take all the blame while the government gets all the credit.

I think we need a different idea.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: soficrow
First, the ebola virus was hiding in the ground and when corporations disturbed the soil or cut down the trees, it was released.

I don't believe it.


Thanks for your response charles1952. ....I thought I clarified that research shows the habitat destruction pushes animal reservoirs of the virus into closer contact with people (by forcing the animals to relocate), resulting in outbreaks - and the soil sequestration idea is my own speculation. ...However, there is no doubt that deforestation is linked to Ebola outbreaks - and it's the industries who are responsible.




Everything I've seen says monkey to human to human transmission.


Sorry, that's wrong. The main reservoir is definitely the Pteropodidae fruit bat. Yes, other animals also get Ebola and some have been linked to outbreaks, but the fruit bat is the main reservoir. As it happens, monkeys tend to die very quickly from Ebola and play a very small role in animal-to-human transmission. fyf, here's a map showing that particular fruit bat's range (dotted magenta line):




Second, corporations should pay for it, not the taxpayer. This needs more explanation for me. Which corporations? Hallmark Cards? Grocery store chains? .....And what happens when you announce, "Any corporation investing in Africa is responsible for cleaning up their diseases, and probably their insurgency movements, too?"


Sorry that wasn't clear - I mean the corporations in West Africa whose activities result in deforestation and habitat destruction (and who are mostly involved in resource extraction). ....If corporations do not factor in the costs of preventing or dealing with environmental contamination and habitat destruction into their operational budgets, we're left holding the bag for resultant epidemics, and healthcare and disability costs (for starters).

[Don't get me started on how corporations bring in mercs to foment insurgencies and commit genocide.]



And I have the feeling that this analysis is more about finding out who can pay for it, than who should. The governments of Africa told the corporations "If you give me lots of money, I'll give you permission to drill big holes in the ground." I would think that Africa has responsibility in this.

Granted, Africa probably doesn't have the ability to solve the problem, and help should come from other countries, but placing the responsibility entirely on corporations seems wrong. After all, are you suggesting that if a corporate funded project finds a cure, they should be able to keep and patent it? Of course not.


No one is saying corporations should pick up the whole tab - just like no one is suggesting that the USA should do it alone, or Africa should pay for it all. The responsibility is shared.




I think we need a different idea.


A different idea than shared responsibility, joint action and multi-sector cooperation? Like maybe just wipe out the Africans and divvy up the spoils? ....But the Ebola will still be there, and it will have mutated.





edit on 5/9/14 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   
only if a profit is available,,,

here is one "fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth.",, ie

"plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth

Ebola and animal resoviours,, so ya a profit can be made.



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: BobAthome
only if a profit is available,,,
... ya a profit can be made.


Yes, there's a profit to be made in West Africa.


[sigh]



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Just tripped over this one.




Ebol a Virus Calls for Increased Responsibility From Companies Mining in West Africa

….West Africa, Miller said, represents a large and untapped mining opportunity, and “it's an opportunity that isn’t going to go away, and nor is the economic potential of West Africa.”

But Ebola isn’t showing any signs of retreating, either, and some mining companies have had to shutter operations in the affected nations—most mines are located in the remote areas where the virus is prevalent and likely to affect their workers, if it hasn’t already.

Of course, these companies also have made the necessary investments and instituted the requisite systems to deal with various kinds of risk, including health crises, which are an important consideration in Africa.

…..As the threat of the crisis increases, “there might be opportunity for companies to assist with prevention, containment and treatment plans, if organizations such as the WHO and governments are also willing to support funding,” Botha said. “The reason why this works well is because large corporates generally have good networks, supply chains and distribution channels as well as good project management and discipline. They are also able to mobilize quickly and navigate potential red tape quickly.”

Combatting the spread of the virus will require West African governments to come together and work closely with international agencies, health service providers and also with the mining companies that, said Rolake Akinkugbe, vice president and head of energy and natural resources coverage & origination at FBN Capital in Lagos, Nigeria, now have a real duty to “think above and beyond Ebola.”

….“Extractive companies, mining and others, always come under great scrutiny in times like these, so there’s a real chance here to go beyond the current outbreak itself and think of long-term survival in terms of helping to foster an environment that promotes sustainable and inclusive growth, and health is an integral aspect of that.”





new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join