RSS Feed     Twitter     Facebook

Posts Tagged ‘change’

Swine flu strikes Downing Street adviser

The first case of swine flu has struck Downing Street and it nearly caused a diplomatic crisis.

Gordon Brown’s senior climate change adviser Michael Jacobs was banned from attending the G8 summit in Italy for fear he would pass the contagious disease to Barack Obama and other world leaders.

It is understood that Jacobs contracted the disease while involved in climate change talks in Mexico.

He had travelled to Rome for some preliminary negotiations on the draft of the G8 communique text, and was told by his personal doctor that he was no longer suffering from the disease. He then planned to travel to the conference site in L’Aquila, Italy, but was told by Brown that he could not risk him going.

The prime minister told Jacobs it would be diplomatically disastrous if Britain was responsible for infecting the G8′s leaders. Instead, Jacobs followed negotiations by phone.

A Downing Street source said there was no evidence that anyone else in Brown’s entourage has contracted swine flu and that if they had, proper procedures for decontamination will be followed.

Jacobs is seen as the one of the best informed climate change specialists in Britain and his absence from the talks was regarded as a significant loss. He made no mention of contracting the disease or the ban imposed on him when he sent out a circular to those interested in climate change setting out the outcome of the negotiations, and the problems that lie ahead in securing a deal at Copenhagen at the end of the year.

Jacobs, former general secretary of the Fabian Society, clearly did not regard his absence as fatal to the outcome of the summit since he pointed out in his email to green groups that five big achievements had been secured at the L’Aquila talks,

For the first time the G8 and developing nations agreed that the science demanded global average temperatures rise by only 2C on preindustrial levels.

“Until a few weeks ago, in fact in the case of the developing countries until a few days ago we did not believe we were going to get this agreement,” he said.

Secondly, the G8 agreed to cut its own emissions by 80% by 2050.

He also said it was now possible to see an agreement to cut global emissions by half at Copenhagen, the aim of the talks. The G8 meetings had seen developing countries for the first time accept the concept that their emissions were peaking, Jacobs said.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Sanjay Khanna: From Climate Science to Climate Justice: Climate Change a Symptom of Man’s Inhumanity to Man

The salient and problematic underlying political reality is that it climate change the culmination of longstanding processes of colonization and realpolitik.

Poor nations urge G8 emissions cuts

Diplomat says developing nations ‘will commit once they have certainty that developed countries are commiting themselves’

Developing nations are prepared to make concessions on climate change targets if the G8 fulfils its side of the bargain in the run-up to the climate change talks in Copenhagen in December, a key negotiator told the Guardian today.

The developing countries want the G8 nations to sign up to a 40% cut by 2020, but that figure is off the radar of the EU and, given the unwieldy legislation laboriously passing through the senate, not a possibility for the US.

In important forward steps this week, the G8 agreed to cut its emissions by 80% by 2050 and said worldwide emissions should fall 50% by the same date.

However, the value of this pledge has been reduced by the lack of an agreed start date from which the emission cuts should be measured, making it a distant promise.

Luis Alfonso de Alba, the lead co-ordinator on climate change for the developing countries at the G8, told the Guardian that their call for a 25-40%cut in developed nations’ emissions by 2020 was based on what UN climate change scientists had recommended.

The Mexican diplomat gave some ground, saying: “It does not have to be a specific target of 40%.

“That is what we hope to achieve, but this is a process of negotiation.”

He said a G8 commitment to a 2020 target was “fundamental”, adding: “It is logical that developing countries will commit once they have certainty that developed countries are commiting themselves.

“We need to see the mid-term targets go much higher, and we want to see all the developed countries, including the US, move at the same pace.

“We still need to see numbers. We respect the internal debate in the US, but it is important for the US to understand that this is a global issue and a multilateral negotiation.”

He said developing nations could not “just sit and wait to see what the internal debate in the US resolves”. He insisted the meeting chaired by Barack Obama under the aegis of the Major Economies Forum this week had made progress in accepting common responsibility for the crisis and for the need for carbon emissions to peak.

“Climate change is no longer seen as a north-south issue,” he said. “It is no longer a donor recipient relationship.

“The most important message is that assuming individual responsibilities to fight climate change can start immediately, and by doing it immediately it will be easier to reach an ambitious agreement at Copenhagen.”

De Alba said Mexico had already come up with its own carbon reduction programme, and he expected other developing nations to do the same over the coming months.

It was acknowledged at the summit that science dictates world temperatures must not rise more than 2C degrees above pre-industrial levels.

The negotiators hope this acknowledgement will drive the coming negotiations in the run-up to Copenhagen.

The talks include three UN sponsored meetings in Bonn, Bangkok and Barcelona as well as another meeting of the G20 in September.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Climate change talks: Wanted: fresh air

Poor countries wrangle with rich ones about who can burn what and when

WHEN argument fails, try metaphor. Shyam Saran, who heads India’s international negotiating team on climate change, says that greenhouse gases are taking up “carbon space” in the atmosphere. Past emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases from rich countries have taken up much of that space. Now the poor countries are standing up for their right to a little bit of that space too.

Put in those terms, it seems a matter of plain justice. Mr Saran is merely defending India’s right to industrialise. But as a negotiating position, it is one of the reasons why the talks on climate change at the G8 meeting in Italy this week have proved so fractious. Mr Saran says that the only limit India will accept on greenhouse-gas emissions is the same per-person amount enjoyed by citizens of developed countries. From the planet’s point of view that would mean a huge, and possibly catastrophic, increase in overall emissions. …

‘Managing change in the face of adversity’

‘Managing change in the face of adversity’ sounds like a good theme for a conference that examines the state of the auto industry in 2009. There would certainly be no shortage of topic items for the programme.


And there are plenty of interesting case studies to look at.


General Motors has just cleared an important hurdle in its efforts to emerge from court administration as a leaner and fitter company later this month. It won’t be entirely without controversy, but the potentially very damaging consequences of a full-scale GM liquidation are at least avoided. The fallout from that would have hit the whole US auto industry very hard.


There’s now just the small matter ahead of making the new company fly at a time when conditions are far from favourable. We had confirmation last week with June’s figures that the US light vehicle market is not getting any worse, but with a SAAR of around 10m units, it’s still a very tough place. For all the talk of ‘green shoots’, bullish investors and economic recovery around the corner, it will be a while yet before the real economy comes back in a meaningful way.


On this side of the Atlantic, we have just had another reminder of an example of ‘change management’ that was, well, little short of disastrous. I don’t want to drag up the long and sorry history of British Leyland/Austin Rover/MG Rover yet again, but the subject has reared its head this week with the news that an official government inquiry into the events surrounding the MG Rover demise in 2005 has been completed. But we aren’t being told what’s in it because the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is now going to get involved.


I don’t know whether the directors of MG Rover acted with what could be termed blatant impropriety, but they did – according to reports – do quite well for themselves with things like very big pensions.


Looking back now, their involvement in the final incarnation of Rover looks more like negligence than anything else. You had a supposedly volume car company making just 200,000 units a year, with almost zero investment in new product while also spectacularly failing to find a suitable long-term partner. It’s the last area where they really screwed up (Tata, already helping MG Rover with a rebadged Indica, was unsurprisingly miffed when SAIC emerged as a much trumpeted ‘partner’ – but that SAIC deal subsequently fell apart).


And the British government’s role? Not exactly covered in glory, which is why it’s not busting a gut to see that inquiry published. Indeed, now the SFO is involved, it may not see the light of day until after the next general election in 2010.


Is it surprising that the final echoes of the decades long industrial car crash that was Rover should be played out in such an unsatisfactory way? Not really. Let’s hope that in ten years’ time we don’t have a similar farce going on in America.

US: Judge OKs GM split into old and new

Review of Bill Hybels, “Holy Discontent”

Review of Bill Hybels, Holy Discontent: Fueling the Fire that Ignites Personal Vision.  Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007.

What really sets you off?  What are the things in life that really get your blood boiling?  In this short, provocative, and easy-to-read book, Willow Creek’s Bill Hybels uses his pastoral fluency to challenge the reader to consider what he calls their “holy discontent,” which consists of a sort of God-given righteous indignation and to channel this discontent in positive directions.  The back-cover blurb summarizes the book very concisely: “Hybels invites you to consider the dramatic impact your life will have when you willingly convert the frustration of your holy discontent into fuel for changing the world.”

Before I proceed with the review I should offer a bit of context.  I saw the title at the bookstore at Gardendale’s First Baptist Church in Gardendale, Alabama on July 13, 2008, and it stuck out for two reasons.  First, I had a passing familiarity with Hybels and his ministry.  Second, Gardendale pastor Kevin Hamm had just given a message on contentment based on a passage from Philippians 4.  From the promotional text on the book jacket it appeared that the book would address a lot of issues in which I am interested.

I found the book to be both timely and revolutionary.  It asks a set of questions and teaches lessons that are important to Christians and non-Christians alike.  Life is frustrating, and unfocused rage can be exhausting.  So how can we channel our discontent in more positive directions?

Hybels bases his book around a very simple question: “why do people do what they do?”  This is based on a simple observation: people expend a lot of time, effort, and energy to change the world, and not always in ways that render material benefits.  In the language of the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, people act in order to remove “felt uneasiness” or to transform their environment into one that they find more suitable.

What Mises calls “felt uneasiness” Hybels calls “holy discontent,” and he compares it to and contrasts it against the spiritual principle of contentment.  Contentment and holy discontent are somewhere along the spectrum between inert complacency and unthinking, unfocused rage. Holy discontent is a motivation to action that is tempered by the Holy Spirit.

Hybels illustrates his points with Biblical patterns and twentieth century examples, noting for example that Moses became useful to God because of the injustices he observed and could not stand (pp. 20-21).  I should mention here that Moses was motivated by holy discontent, but when he tried to take care of business by his own ideas and his own methods, he failed miserably, sacrificing his credibility with the nation of Israel by killing an Egyptian.

The failures of our Biblical examples are encouraging, and Hybels encourages us to take God’s perspective on our fellow man.  Every person should be labeled “work in progress,” and it should be unsurprising (and un-discouraging) when our zeal for God’s house issues in mistakes and shortcomings.

To use a more modern pattern, Hybels discusses the work of Martin Luther King, Jr. as an example of someone taking something he could stand no more and effecting change.  Even today, people delight in pointing out King’s personal and professional failures.  Indeed, there was much in King’s politics, economics, and personal life that was objectionable.  But the same applies to King David, whose failures and shortcomings are immortalized as part of Holy Writ.  We shouldn’t infer from this that God excuses everything; rather, we should take comfort from this in the knowledge that God can use people in spite of their failures and shortcomings.  That Dr. King was imperfect should surprise no one.  That God used him in spite of this to usher in a peaceful revolution in the way the United States conceives of the proposition that all men are created equal should inspire everyone.

Most of the remainder of the book consists of examples and applications.  He discusses the fire in some hearts for children’s ministry, women’s ministry, poverty alleviation, revival, and other matters.  His discussion of children’s ministry was especially compelling as he pointed out the workers at Willow Creek who, taking the view that some percentage of the children at Willow Creek on any given Sunday are, have been, or will be abused, seek to provide an environment in which the kids can be comforted, cared for, and loved.  The trials and travails of daily life that seem so important fade to black when God shines his light on real injustice and others’ pain.

Hybels’s goal is to help people channel their deep discontent—and such discontent can be healthy—into effective action, noting on pages 50 and 51 that there has to be a purpose for our lives between salvation and death.  Quoting Ephesians 2:10, Hybels notes that we are to dedicate ourselves to good works.  This point can be summarized in the following passage from page 41:

Truly there’s nothing more inspiring than a person who transforms something he just can’t stand into the kind of positive energy that advances restoration in the world.  This is what’s at work every time a check gets sent from a grateful heart to a worthy cause, all in the name of “doing good” in the world.  It’s what’s at work every time a person steps into a church or a civic center or a reliev agency’s tent with an “I’m here to serve” attitude—and does so after logging forty or sixty or eighty hours at their “real” job each week.  It’s also what’s at work when that real job is more than a path to a paycheck; it is an avenue for releasing a little pent-up holy discontent tension.

Incubating clarity takes time, though.  Hybels advises baby steps (pp. 67-68) while at the same time advising a resolute forward march against the Goliaths of our lives (pp. 70-71).  He counsels a conscientious and self-aware view of the areas where we really think we need to see change. Rather than fighting the impulses we feel when something really drives us crazy, he suggests that we feed rather than fight the missional feelings that God gives us.  He cites further the example of U2’s Bono, a rock star who has no doubt made many rock star mistakes but who shines as a “1000-watt bulb,” to paraphrase Hybels, and as a living expression of his faith.  I disagree with Bono about a great many things related to economic development policy, but his earnestness and his willingness to seek out wise counsel (such as Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs) are admirable.

Here I diverge from a traditional review and consider some of the take-home points I have gleaned from this book.  Business writer Seth Godin has suggested that one should not read a business book without resolving to change at least three things as a result.  Here I echo this advice.  Holy Discontent is not a business book per se, but it is a call to action.  I would like to combine Hybels’s message with some of the things I have learned as an economist to help the reader formulate an action plan that can complement the book.

With respect to good works, we should think hard and have a nuanced understanding of what we seek to change. This requires that we seek wise counsel.  I mentioned earlier that I think Bono’s views about the process of economic development are incorrect (and have gone on record to this effect), but he has done something that few celebrity activists have done.  He sought the assistance of the very best; indeed, his relationship with development economist Jeffrey Sachs resulted in Bono’s writing the introduction for Sachs’s book The End of Poverty.  I am more inclined to fall on the other side of the development debate, agreeing primarily with New York University economist William Easterly, but we should all follow Bono’s example by seeking to develop a nuanced understanding of the problems we seek to solve.

We should also “see then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, for the days are evil,” continuing steadfastly in prayer and fellowship (Ephesians 4?:15-16).  The world will fill all of our time with demands on our attention, which means that we will often be tempted to put off the things that are important in order to take care of things which are merely urgent. This suggests two action steps.

We would all do well to take an inventory of our commitments and of the things that create in us a sense of holy discontent.  Then we should apply what has come to be known as the “80/20 rule,” a rule developed based on the writings of the Italian economist Vilifredo Pareto.  Pareto pointed out an interesting empirical regularity: approximately eighty percent of output comes from about twenty percent of inputs, and approximately eighty percent of problems come from about twenty percent of inputs.  This suggests that we should look for and seek to develop the twenty percent of our commitments that create eighty percent of our meaningful results while discarding the commitments we have that are very heavy on the inputs but very light on the output.

This requires a degree of discipline, review, and reflection that I, quite honestly, have struggled to implement.  Particularly as technology changes and as we become more productive, the demands on our time will only increase.  The temptation to sacrifice what is important and productive in order to do things that are trivial and perhaps unproductive can be, at times, overwhelming.  Over time, however, we can develop the discipline necessary to change the things that create in us a sense of holy discontent.
In my estimation, Bill Hybels has written a very important book.  It is by no means a “how to” manual on dealing with holy discontent, but it offers a scriptural and practical foundation on which to build our lives and ministries.  Hybels’s book is short and easy to read, and in this sense it is a literary manifestation of Shakespeare’s idea that “brevity is the soul of wit.”  The book has changed my outlook on life, and I expect it will do the same for others, too.


Art Carden is Assistant Professor of Economics and Business at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee and an Adjunct Fellow with the Oakland, California-based Independent Institute. His research papers have been published or are forthcoming in Public Choice, Contemporary Economic Policy, the International Journal of Social Economics, the Business and Society Review, the Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, the Review of Austrian Economics, and other outlets, and they can be found on his SSRN Author Page. His commentaries appear regularly atwww.mises.org and in newspapers around the country, and he is a regular contributor to Division of Labour. He and his wife, Shannon, had their first child in July, 2008.



Spinewatch: Can Link Journalism Change How the Media Covers the Presidential Election Campaign?

Jay Rosen of PressThink has started a meme called “spinewatch,” which he’s pursuing on Twitter with the #spinewatch tag and on the Publish2 Spinewatch Newsgroup that he created, where he offers this description:
Spinewatch is a newsgroup and link bank for campaign 2008 stories of a certain narrowly-defined type. Here, we keep track of reporting from [...]