by Andy Sumner | Jun 10, 2011 | Africa, Economics and development, Global system, Middle East and North Africa
Charles Kenny’s Getting Better is one of the books of the moment (here’s a summary and reviews in NYT and the Financial Times and listen to it here).
It’s an upbeat account of progress. Things have got better around the world.
He notes that if one looks at almost any measure of quality of life except income there has been real and rapid progress. For example, infant mortality has halved since 1960 and countries in every region of the world have seen such improvements not only in health but in education, gender equality, civil and political rights too over the same period.
This is good news. I was struck by three things.
(more…)
by Alex Evans | Jun 10, 2011 | Climate and resource scarcity, Influence and networks
What have sausages got to do with climate change (and no, this isn’t about methane emissions from livestock)? For the answer, see Sizzle – the new report on communicating climate change from Futerra. Why sizzle?
In the 1940s a supersalesman named Elmer Wheeler made what TIME magazine called ‘a handsome living’ advising U.S. businesses: “Don’t sell the sausage – sell the sizzle!” Elmer knew that the big secret to successful selling is that you don’t advertise the sausage itself – because it’s the desirable sounds and smells which get the juices flowing and the people hungry.
And what’s this got to do with climate change?
Climate change itself isn’t the sizzle, it’s the sausage. That’s where our second metaphor comes in. The most common message on climate change is that we’re all going to hell. That’s what climate change looks like when you get right down to it; rising seas, scorched earth, failing food supplies, billions of starving refugees tormented by wild weather. But contrary to every expectation, hell doesn’t actually sizzle. Hell doesn’t sell. Although these Armageddon climate scenarios might be accurate and eye-catching, they haven’t changed attitudes or behaviours nearly enough. Threats of climate hell haven’t seemed to hold us back from running headlong towards it.
So what is the sizzle on climate change? In a nutshell, it’s about making sure that narratives describe the positive, by painting a really resonant picture of what ‘low carbon heaven’ will look like.
This is a really great report. Although I think narratives that emphasise the opportunity on climate change need to be deployed with care, I think that Futerra are spot on in arguing that narratives about responding to climate change and scarcity have to paint a picture of the “sunny uplands” that lie at the other end of the transition. This is something that’s all too often not reflected in campaigning groups’ messaging – and it’s something that needs to be fixed.
by Alex Evans | Jun 9, 2011 | Climate and resource scarcity
I’ve seen some pretty bizarre ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in my time, but this must set some sort of record:
Australia is considering awarding carbon credits for killing feral camels as a way to tackle climate change.
The suggestion is included in Canberra’s “Carbon Farming Initiative”, a consultation paper by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, seen Thursday.
Adelaide-based Northwest Carbon, a commercial company, proposed culling some 1.2 million wild camels that roam the Outback, the legacy of herds introduced to help early settlers in the 19th century.
Considered a pest due to the damage they do to vegetation, a camel produces, on average, a methane equivalent to one tonne of carbon dioxide a year, making them collectively one of Australia’s major emitters of greenhouse gases.
In its plan, Northwest said it would shoot them from helicopters or muster them and send them to an abattoir for either human or pet consumption.
“We’re a nation of innovators and we find innovative solutions to our challenges — this is just a classic example,” Northwest Carbon managing director Tim Moore told Australian Associated Press.
No kidding.
by Richard Gowan | Jun 8, 2011 | Global system, Influence and networks, Off topic
This week, Ban Ki-moon announced that he wants a second term at the helm of the UN. As I predicted last September, the U.S. is behind his renewal, and the rest of the Security Council seems on board. A few miserable grinches may argue that Ban could have done with some competition. But at Global Dashboard, we can proudly look back over Ban’s first term and say that we brought you uniquely detailed coverage of his journey from man to legend. Click on these links for classic coverage of Ban’s…
- …nuisance phone calls…
- …unfortunate medal collection…
- …reality TV star status…
- …sheer goddamn manliness…
- …ability to charm the ladies…
- …misty-eyed nostalgia…
- …unfortunate flirtations with cliché…
- …Jewish neocon enemies (or lack thereof)…
- …anger…
- …astounding ability to rap!
Thanks for sticking with us, Mr. Ban. We can’t wait for the next five years.
by Richard Gowan | Jun 8, 2011 | Conflict and security, Europe and Central Asia, Global system, Middle East and North Africa
Today, Britain and France are tabling a Security Council resolution condemning the violence in Syria. While the French Foreign Minister has predicted in public that Russia will veto this draft, the British PM has claimed the moral high ground:
British Prime Minister David Cameron said the draft resolution before the Security Council focused on “condemning the repression and demanding accountability and humanitarian action”.
“If anyone votes against that resolution, or tries to veto it, that should be on their conscience,” he added.
There’s something inherently appealing about Cameron’s moral position. Having worked on power politics and human rights at the UN for some time, I suspect that the Franco-British drive will be thwarted. But, with the Syrian crisis escalating, it’s just possible that Russia and China could back down. Even if they don’t, highlighting their intransigence may boost the Western powers’ claim to be the Arabs’ best friends.
Nonetheless, I also worry about framing Security Council debates as matters of conscience. I have an article in the new edition of Pragati, an Indian policy review, arguing that this year’s UN debates over Libya were insufficiently realistic:
All the members of the Security Council, Western and non-Western alike, have had to face the reality that they did not have viable diplomatic strategies for the “long haul” in Libya. NATO’s members, including the United States, have looked increasingly nervous about sustaining the air campaign (let alone any sort of ground operation).
India and the other BRICS, meanwhile, have called repeatedly for a negotiated settlement in spite all evidence that Colonel Gaddafi is pathologically untrustworthy. There is nothing wrong with looking for a peaceful solution, and ultimately a pretty ugly deal may be required in Libya, but India and the other BRICS have not been able to point to mechanism for achieving this goal. South Africa did try to play an active part—President Jacob Zuma even went to Tripoli—but came up with a plan the rebels couldn’t accept.
There is something unreal about the postures of both sides in this debate. The United States, France and Britain unleashed the NATO air campaign insisting that it was not about regime change. Yet it was always clear that regime change was almost certainly the only way to end this war in a way that the West could accept. Conversely, the BRICS have been stout defenders of a diplomatic solution when it is clear that—without a significant change in the balance of forces—the conditions for a lasting deal do not exist.
Whatever one thinks about interventionism – in Libya or in general – pursuing non-viable options through the UN is not a good idea. It makes not only the Security Council but also the big powers look foolish. Whether your morals and political philosophy incline you towards interventionism or restraint, you should want your arguments to have basic strategic credibility. As I argued in a piece for World Politics Review earlier this year, a number of African countries have recently defied the Security Council by forcing it to withdraw peacekeepers. That’s hurt the Council. Let’s hope that Libya and Syria don’t exacerbate the damage too badly.
