<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>



	
	
			
			
		<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
		
		<channel>
		
			<title>Demos Project : An Underwhelming Truth</title>
			
			<link>http://www.demos.co.uk/projects/anunderwhelmingtruth/</link>
			<language>en-us</language>
			<copyright>Copyright 2008</copyright>
			<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 04:06:53 UT</pubDate>
						
			<description>Latest items from An Underwhelming Truth on http://www.demos.co.uk/ - the thinktank for everyday democracy</description>
			

			
			<lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 04:06:53 UT</lastBuildDate>


			
		
		
		
		
	
	<item>
		<title>Stern talking</title>
		<link>http://www.demos.co.uk/items/7963</link>
		<description><![CDATA[Couple of quick thoughts on the response to the Stern report on climate change today: -         first, is it just me who finds it slightly ironic that not only is there a collective action problem amongst the public in addressing climate change, but there is also one amongst politicians? The public want to know that everyone else is going to jump before they do (so we all share the pain). And so do the politicians. Both the government and the tories... ( from BlogPosts )]]></description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.demos.co.uk/items/7963</guid>
		<content:encoded>
		
			<![CDATA[<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="CY" style="">Couple of quick thoughts on the response to the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6096084.stm">Stern report</a> on climate change today:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="CY" style=""><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p style="margin-left: 21pt; text-indent: -18pt;" class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="CY" style=""><span style="">-<span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="CY" style="">first, is it just me who finds it slightly ironic that not only is there a collective action problem amongst the public in addressing climate change, but there is also one amongst politicians? The public want to know that everyone else is going to jump before they do (so we all share the pain). And so do the politicians. Both the government and the tories only feel capable of inching towards poliy solutions, because they are worried about coming off as the bad guys in all of this.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin-left: 21pt; text-indent: -18pt;" class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="CY" style=""><span style="">-<span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="CY" style="">Second, it is so frustrating to keep on hearing that there shouldn&rsquo;t be a duty added to air fares because it would hit the poorest hardest. Do people really think the best way to redistribute wealth is through air faires? And will anyone actually get round to challenging that assumption in an interview?<o:p></o:p></span></p>]]>
		
		</content:encoded>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:37:41 UT</pubDate>
		<author>duncan.oleary@demos.co.uk ( Duncan O'Leary )</author>
		
		
		
	</item>
	
	 	
		
		
	
	<item>
		<title>We&amp;apos;ve got global challenges - can Europe deal?</title>
		<link>http://www.demos.co.uk/items/7828</link>
		<description><![CDATA[An impressive list of speakers joined the LSE event The Global Age: Europe, India, China last night where Tony Giddens was launching two books, both on the challenges to (and strengths of)  the European social model. Europe&amp;apos;s welfare states are in need of reform, but the European approach of &amp;apos;social investment&amp;apos; is the only way forward. The major challenges facing the world today are global - climate change was often mentioned. And though the US, India and China are important powers, it is... ( from BlogPosts )]]></description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.demos.co.uk/items/7828</guid>
		<content:encoded>
		
			<![CDATA[An impressive list of speakers joined the <a href="http://http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/LSEPublicLecturesAndEvents/events/2006/20060904t1145z001.htm">LSE event The Global Age: Europe, India, China</a> last night where Tony Giddens was launching two books, both on the challenges to (and strengths of)&nbsp; the European social model. Europe's welfare states are in need of reform, but the European approach of 'social investment' is the only way forward. The major challenges facing the world today are global - climate change was often mentioned. And though the US, India and China are important powers, it is Europe's model that is the most resilient and experienced in facing these global problems. It has proven itself with the 'mini globalisation' of European enlargement, and will be a major force in the changing geopolitical map of the world in the future. (See <a href="http://globalab.wordpress.com/2006/10/10/the-global-age-europe-and-a-bit-of-india-and-china/">more on the talk</a> at <a href="http://globalab.wordpress.com/">Globalab</a>.)<br /><br />On the&nbsp; topic of climate change, I was interested that Tony Giddens seemed to imply that being 'green' was about being unreasonably attached to preserving a state of nature, when instead we must convince people to change their lifestyles and 'integrate environment into the rights and responsibilities of the citizen'.<br /><br />This idea is not something new to most 'greens' I know (and especially not to those at Giddens' own LSE) but it highlights how we seem to be repeating some of the same environmental arguments today, only in a context of greater overall awareness. Discussions around behaviour change (<a href="http://www.green-alliance.org.uk/publications/PubCarrotsSticksSermons/">see the 2003 report by James Wilsdon and Green Alliance</a>), market mechanisms (<a href="http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&amp;se=gglsc&amp;d=5001899829&amp;er=deny">Green and Competitive, 1995</a>) and efficiency (<a href="http://www.rmi.org/">Rocky Mountain Institute</a>) are not brand new concepts, though some may have just discovered them. Some of the evidence around climate change might be new (<a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1822171.ece">yesterday's independent article</a>) but maybe the evidence is just easier - politically or socially - to talk about.<br /><br />I welcome all the interest and awareness, and hope that we're really able to (FINALLY) turn this into action which results in reductions of consumption, whether of petroleum or other goods. in the past, some countries have achieved decoupling of consumption and economic growth - especially in <a href="http://www.ambottawa.um.dk/en/servicemenu/News/Denmark+the+second+most+energy+efficient+country+in+the+world.htm">Denmark and Japan</a> - and therefore relative reductions, but absolute reductions are&nbsp; a much more difficult proposition.]]>
		
		</content:encoded>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:50:24 UT</pubDate>
		<author>molly.webb@gmail.com ( Molly Webb )</author>
		
		
		
	</item>
	
	 	
	</channel>	 	
</rss>