Global Dashboard

The best news on climate change for months. Maybe. Alex Evans

January 4, 2010 | More on Climate and resource scarcity, Economics and development, Key Posts | 15 comments

And now for the good news on climate change. 

First, an excerpt from the New York Times yesterday.  We join Bono, a contributing columnist at the Times, as he’s setting out a list of 10 ideas that might make the next 10 years “more interesting, healthy or civil” – ideas which “have little in common with one another except that I am seized by each, and moved by its potential to change our world.” Here’s number 3:

In the recent climate talks in Copenhagen, it was no surprise that developing countries objected to taking their feet off the pedal of their own carbon-paced growth; after all, they played little part in building the congested eight-lane highway of a problem that the world faces now.

One smart suggestion I’ve heard, sort of a riff on cap-and-trade, is that each person has an equal right to pollute and that there might somehow be a way to monetize this. By this accounting, your average Ethiopian can sell her underpolluting ways (people in Ethiopia emit about 0.1 ton of carbon a year) to the average American (about 20 tons a year) and use the proceeds to deal with the effects of climate change (like drought), educate her kids and send them to university. (Trust in capitalism — we’ll find a way.) As a mild green, I like the idea, though it’s controversial in militant, khaki-green quarters. And yes, real economists would prefer to tax carbon at the source, but so far the political will is not there. If it were me, I’d close the deal before the rising nations want it backdated.

Bono just endorsed contraction and convergence – a big deal, for three reasons.

First, it’s clear he gets the key things that you have to get. He gets that the real potential is not in everyone having equal per capita emissions, but in everyone having equal per capita emission entitlements - the difference being, as he says, that with the latter, trading enables low emitters to profit from it while still staying within the overall emissions budget. (Fuller explanation of that point here.)

He also gets, consequently, that we’re talking about a potentially very important new source of finance for development – one that’s different from aid. This is especially important when public finances are about to experience massive cutbacks in a lot of OECD donor countries, with aid budgets probably among the first casualties.

And he gets that the clock is ticking (“If it were me, I’d close the deal before the rising nations want it backdated”). As David and I note in the post-Copenhagen analysis we did for Brookings, the risk of waiting later and later and later to start talking seriously about developing countries’ fair share of the global emissions budget - something we’ve been doing for years, and are still doing now –  is that developing countries will find that all or most of the available carbon budget to 2050 will have been used up before they come to the table. Hardly promising conditions for a serious global deal.

Second, Bono’s advocacy is a big deal because it could really jump-start the process of strategic renewal so badly needed among the NGOs campaigning on climate change.

NGOs had an appalling year in the run-up to Copenhagen.  Throughout last year, the main NGO coalition, tcktcktck.org, was vague about its headline policy asks (“ambitious, binding, fair” – but no definition of what these words actually meant). Then the green NGOs blundered into the start of Copenhagen by proposing a peak year for global emissions two years later than the IPCC said was needed. And by the end of the summit, they had collapsed back into the usual rhetoric about rich countries bullying poor countries – overlooking, as Mark Lynas stressed in his must-read Guardian piece, the extent to which actually, something different was going on at the summit.

Last year saw development NGOs increasingly trying to push the wider civil society coalitions towards a more effective stance. They didn’t always (or even often) succeed; but behind the scenes, they were doing as much as they could. When that wasn’t enough, to their credit, agencies like Avaaz and Oxfam proved willing to break visibly with green NGOs on key issues – like what the global peak emissions year should be. So far, though, the ONE Campaign - with its very considerable advocacy firepower - has kept a low profile in all this.  Its main focus in the climate context has been on additional finance for development to tackle climate change – rather than on emissions trading as a source of additional finance for development.

Bono’s article potentially changes all that, given his passing acquintanceship with ONE.  If so, then the significance is not just that it brings another highly effective development NGO into play on the big game. It’s also that it potentially encourages the emerging development / climate coalition to focus on the two biggest questions on the table: what’s the size of a safe global emissions budget, and what’s the fairest way to share it out.

Love him or hate him, Bono’s one of the few people that can take a radical, very far-reaching idea like equal shares to the atmosphere as the foundation for a global deal on climate and just mainstream it – with the UN Secretary-General, with the World Economic Forum, with the Pope, whoever. Which bring me to the third reason why this is a big deal. Not only can Bono and the ONE Campaign pitch this idea to Ban Ki-moon, WEF or Benedict XVI. He can pitch it to the most important group of all right now: G77 leaders.

He can get access to the people who most need to recognise that not only is their solidarity with China on ‘no-targets-for-developing-countries’ harming their long term future by preventing a global climate deal, given that they’re in the front line of climate impacts – it’s also ensuring that they miss out on a potentially huge new flow of finance for development. A simple message that might, just might, get low income countries demanding their fair share of the atmosphere - in doing so, becoming some of the very strongest advocates of an effective global deal. Cross your fingers.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

15 comments »


  1. Bono’s piece is interesting and Alex Evan’s crack analysis even more so. Well done.


  2. So all a country would have to do to have a higher percentage of carbon credits would be to raise its birth rate? Or is it just the folks who are alive right now who get the entitlement, and future generations get shafted, as usual? Either way, seems like the unintended consequences could be severe.


  3. to: – Dethe Elza

    Some may disagree with your view that people would raise their ‘birth-rates’ to get more credits.

    However, some don’t so C&C has a population base-year option.

    If you truly feel that is the only problem here, you can join with OPT and campaign as they do for C&C with that: -
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/24759560/Climate-Change-09-Optimum-Population-Trust


  4. Sorry to be contrary, but i agree with Mr Elza. Emissions rights should be calculated according to no. of people in country:m2 land. Also, think the retrospective argument is stupid. Real evidence that emissions are damaging the Earth’s atmosphere has been collected relatively recently. Happy new year.


  5. to: – C Ellis

    “Emissions rights should be calculated according to no. of people in country:m2 land” Did Dethe Elza say this?

    What I read Dethe Elza to say was: – “So all a country would have to do to have a higher percentage of carbon credits would be to raise its birth rate?”

    Maybe you want to check with Dethe [I am not sure if Dethe is a boy's name or girl's name - forgive me please] whether what you have said is accurate.


  6. i agree with the idea that emissions shouldn’t be calculated according to no. of people in a country, but according to the area of land a country covers. This avoids countries raising their birth rates and would not necessarily be a bad thing for poorer countries (i don’t think).


  7. C. Ellis, sorry to disagree with you agreeing with me, but I think basing this on land size is way less sensible than by population. It would take a concerted effort to raise the birthrate enough to effect this, I was simply trying to make a point about unintended consequences (and Aubrey Meyer assures us they’re thought of this already, so I could be completely off base). But basing on land size means that small, dense nations (like Palestine) which have low carbon footprints would be penalized, while Canda (where I live), which is a large, sparsely populated nation, but a heavy carbon emitter (goddamn tar sands) would be rewarded, which makes no sense at all.


  8. Hi Dethe,

    i dont see that your point and my point are totally exclusive. i simply was developing your point, as is my right as a commenter (?). i agree that the per capita allocation of emissions could have unintended consequences. i think your concern is countries raising their birth rates to get more emissions rights. My concern is similar, if not identical. i don’t believe that countries should be rewarded simply by having a large population. The only way you can measure a large population is by comparing population to a country’s land area. But also, surely you can only allocate emissions rights according to land area, not according to head counts? Or am i missing something?

    With respect, dont quite understand argument about Palestine or Canada. If the Palestinians have a low carbon footprint, then i cant see that they would be excessively penalised. Canada has a large area with a relatively low population. Canada may get more emissions rights because of their large land area (using the hypothetical land area allocation system), but it may be that they fairly quickly squander these because of the tar sands etc..


  9. We have one planet, with one atmosphere, one climate, and one species currently hell bent on fouling it up for themselves and most other life forms. 6 billion of them and counting. But its not the population that’s the problem, its the high polluting few that give Earth a problem. Billions of poor people don’t pollute atall, in comparison.

    Our own atmosphere has a safe upper limit of CO2, many think this to be around 350ppm. We are at 388ppm now.

    So we need to cut back on emissions, and it could be regarded as a bit of an invisible air-fill (a la land-fill) situation. What everyone expects is a fair share of the air.

    So Bono, and C&C are surely precisely RIGHT.

    As one citizen of this planet, I don’t expect to be told that i have any more or any less right to air-space than anyone else. Not here on in…

    And as a parent, I’d expect my children, when they are adult, to have the same air share and pollution rights as anyone else on this planet, no more no less.

    No other solution is fair, from the perspective of one global citizen.

    But more important, no other solution is practical, or ultimately agreeable – not without force.

    Hence for me it’s C&C or bust.


  10. Nice article, Alex and I agree with your points, especially point 2.

    I wouldn’t underestimate the power that individuals like Bono have, both in mobilising other high profile names to pitch the same message and to get the same message to the public in ways politicians can only dream of.


  11. Well said Jeremy, I completely agree.

    It’s mind-blowing how many amazing people are fully signed up to C&C, and how many have been for years. (eg Archbishop of Canterbury!) The more you look into who is supporting it, who has endorsed it, and who is campaigning for it, the more you find its an utterly irresitible force for good. And the immovable objectors are falling aside. Because you can’t really argue with fair air shares.

    There is a Facebook group called ‘C&C is beautiful’ where some high profile backers of C&C can congregate and chat if that is of any interest. Just search for the title and join.


  12. What garbage. Why reward failure and backwardness as if it some desirable state. This is charity, no more or less, and if we are going to give it we better keep control of the purse strings and make sure it is spent properly, otherwise it will just be frittered away like most of the aid given to poor countries with bad governments. Limking it to the untested theory of anthropogenic global warming is a sham.


  13. have tried to do a little more research on C & C but only have limited time. Am simply a lay person trying to get my head round the concept – but then in a democracy a lay person’s understanding is important. Despite a little research, still do not understand how emissions entitlements would be allocated. However, i am presuming that land area:population of country would be taken into account in the C & C scheme? C & C proponents say that it is a simple scheme, but i think it’s quite complicated, and whilst i wouldn’t claim to be the most intelligent person in the world, i don’t think i am the most intellectually challenged one either.

    Really, my reason for questioning C & C is quite crude: if it’s the ideal solution, why don’t more countries buy it?

    In my researches, I came accross this website: http://www.greenhealth.org.uk/CCSimpol.htm

    It seems, from this, that what is required is a system that is:
    “i Realistic (relevant to countries with different national circumstances);
    ii. Robust (capable of being adjusted in the light of experience), and;
    iii. Durable (will not become irrelevant after a few years)

    But for any such framework to be effective, it would be necessary for it to achieve a wide global acceptance and to deliver results in terms of significant emissions reductions. The Government is committed to finding a solution to the issue of climate change that meets these criteria.”

    Humour me whilst i play Devil’s Advocate, but wouldn’t the implementing of C & C be incredibly complicated? It would require masses of global education, for a start. Secondly, how would individuals sell their entitlements if they live in the middle of the countryside and have no access to the internet?

    Thirdly, those of us living in cold countries need heating. It is not our faults. I know that such considerations are thought of in the C & C scheme, but i feel that this implication immediately undermines the concept of per capital emissions rights. Equally, we use more energy at different times in our life cycle. This isn’t reflected in the per capita concept either. There may even be justifiable gender differences in the way we use energy – again the blanket per capita idea does not illustrate this. Moreover, the type of job we do may determine how much energy we need. Thus adjustments to the original per capita idea might again mean the system falls foul of the governments requirement for the system to be realistic, durable and robust.

    Also, isn’t mixing aid with carbon entitlements a little moralistic and presumptious? I would conjecture that this built-in political weighting is likely to put certain countries’ backs up.

    So, i am very much in favour of reducing emissions, but i just wonder if C & C is the most valid and elegant way of going about it? Forgive me for my considerable ignorance on this matter.


  14. C Ellis – Implementing ‘anything’ to do with UNFCCC, involves complications i.e. so your point is true for ‘any’ proposal.

    Perhaps you want to compare achieving the objective of the UNFCCC [safe and stable ghg Concentrations in the atmosphere *] with a wider range of proposals, procedures and ‘process’ [e.g. COPs 1-15] so as then to then take a view of how complicated or simple C&C may or not be.

    Many think it is simple and to the point and some think it is too simple . . . . there are those who think its too complicated . . . and then there is ‘real life’ . . .

    One of the world’s most active, independent and intelligent ‘climate-contrarians’ [Dick Lindzen] said to me once [at a nice pasta-supper next to the Leaning Tower of Pisa in 2004] “Aubrey – its obvious if you want * [above] you have to have emissions contraction – if you to have that you have to have convergence – *I don’t just think humanity has the wit to organize that!*” [He may well be right, but its worth a shot . . . ].

    Cheers

    A

    Try here for some C&C background and support [at the back]: – http://www.tangentfilms.com/GCIEAC10nov09.pdf


  15. There clearly is support for C&C, as this letter to Chris Huhne and the signatories to it shows: – http://www.gci.org.uk/politics.html

AFP: Europe targets commodities derivatives trade And France plans to put the issue on its G20 . Not much in the way of concrete policy proposals yet, though
Blair: the sex scenes | The Spectator "…that night she cradled me in her arms and soothed me; told me what I needed to be told ... I needed that love Cherie gave me, selfishly. I devoured it to give me strength"
BBC News - Newsnight - Wheat genome may help tackle food shortages Global Dashboard's Alex Evans on Newsnight
Exclusive: Meghan McCain Breaks Silence on Sarah Palin - ABC News Palin brought "drama, stress, complications, panic and loads of uncertainty" to the losing campaign
FAO Media Centre: Wheat sends food prices up FAO Food Price Index up 5% - highest level since September 08, but still 38% below June 2008 peak.
How Bush and Blair plotted in secret to stop Brown - Sunday Telegraph Tony Blair attempted to prolong his time as prime minister after he was warned that George W Bush’s US administration had “grave doubts” about Gordon Brown’s suitability
Boils next time | openDemocracy Life in post-Katrina New Orleans
With Hill Hopes for Climate Bill Dashed, Advocates Circle Wagons at EPA - NYTimes.com With global warming legislation sidelined, advocates are bracing for battle over U.S. EPA climate rules, the only game in town for curbing emissions
Friday Notebook: The New Simon-Ehrlich Teaching Story | Gregor.us That famous bet between Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon on resource depletion? "the winner of the the wager was the beneficiary of timing, not insight"
US appeals own win in WTO spat over EU Airbus aid - BusinessWeek Now there's something you seldom see
UN reform: stalled or stable? | The Multilateralist "With Republicans set to make a comeback in Congress, you can be sure that the UN reform trumpets will sound again soon enough in Washington"
United Nations Takes Further Steps Toward Global Governance Framework » Global Governance Watch UN MDG summit and High-level Panel on Global Sustainability part of a "modern-day Tower of Babel"
Near the North Pole, Looking at a Disaster - NYTimes.com Thomas Homer Dixon on why we need a global climate resilience plan (and no, he's not talking community adaptation)
How Authors Really Make Money: The Rebirth of Seth Godin and Death of Traditional Publishing Invaluable guide to the economics of publishing a book
The EAS: what it takes to succeed | Dan Smith's blog As the EU's External Action Service starts to become real, what can and should we expect from it?
Pakistan floods: an emergency for the West - Telegraph Unless we act decisively, large parts of flood-stricken Pakistan will be taken over by the Taliban, writes Ahmed Rashid.
The Stingy Emerging Powers | Turtle Bay Many of Pakistan's regional allies and neighbors, including China, Iran and Saudi Arabia, as well as other developing countries, have sent only a trickle of aid in the crucial first weeks of the crisi. […]
Wheat storm will soon blow itself out - Telegraph Wheat futures by 50pc in a month ensures a nasty shock for bread lovers, but this is a very different story from the global food crisis two years ago.
Inside the poverty puzzle: a plug for slum tours | wondermentwoman.com "With all the excitement surrounding poverty alleviation efforts, slum tours have exploded in popularity. This troubles many. I’m not so sure."
Why has extreme weather failed to heat up climate debate? | Bill McKibben | guardian.co.uk "I'd be surprised if by this time next year civil disobedience was not under way across the globe"
Pakistan floods Smart campaigning from Oxfam
How would we deal with aid from abroad? | British Red Cross What if the UK was hit by a large-scale disaster that meant we needed international relief from beyond our borders? That’s the subject of a new report commissioned by the British Red Cross
FT.com / Technology - US matches Indian call centre costs Call centre workers are becoming as cheap to hire in the US as they are in India, according to the head of the country’s largest business process outsourcing company.
Attention and influence | PeerIndex Blog How researchers at Cornell and HP Labs connect the dots on social graph to determine online authority.
First 100 days: Inside the coalition government | Politics | guardian.co.uk Clickable map of which special advisers sit where and who's mates with whom (though not sure they got the idea that 70 Whitehall isn't on, er, Whitehall)
Ramadan clash with 9/11 anniversary raises fears of anti-Islam backlash | World news | The Guardian Islamic groups in the US fear an overlap between the end of Ramadan and the anniversary of 9/11 will lead to criticisms that Muslims are celebrating the 2001 terrorist attacks.
Extreme weather unlikely to help climate talks - Vancouver Sun ...even though Russian and Pakistani governments have both explicitly attributed their extreme weather events to climate change
The Federal Reserve Enters Decline | Gregor.us Scarcer oil will constrain new growth and make debt harder to pay back - so the Fed needs to be thinking about a debt jubilee, not new credit provision
Is Google's Secret New Think Tank Plucking Its Main Man from the State Department? - Think Tanked We've been told that Jared Cohen is busy building a new entity for Google which is tentatively called Google Ideas - a global initiatives 'think tank' office inside of Google, to be run from NYC
"Hallowed Ground" A few photos of stuff the same distance from the World Trade Center as the “Ground Zero Mosque”
FT.com / Commodities - Palm oil supply squeezed by heavy rainfall in Indonesia More extreme weather, more food price rises
The Bank must reassure Britain it has not lost its grip on policy - Telegraph The Bank of England's now the most highly geared financial institution. Could it go bust?
Goldman Sachs partner Jeffrey Currie goes against the flow Profile of GS's head of commodities research, who correctly called the 2008 food and fuel price spike well in advance (including the massive role of biofuels in the food price spike)
‘The Food Movement, Rising’: An Exchange | The New York Review of Books Powerful rebuttal of the 'localisation is the way forward argument' in a reply to Michael Pollan
Wyclef Jean confirms he will run for Haiti president | Music | The Guardian
Red Eye - Abstract City Blog - NYTimes.com A visual diary documenting a flight from New York to Berlin (with a layover in London). Awesome.
Can Science Feed The World? : Specials : Nature News A clutch of articles from a special edition of Nature on food and agriculture
BBC News - Knowledge of Afghanistan 'astonishingly thin' Diplomats rotate through the country for short deployments, linguistic skills are minimal, and Afghan studies is an "orphan subject," hardly taught at universities.
Coalition's first crowdsourcing attempt fails to alter Whitehall line | Technology | The Guardian Simon Burall: "badly designed consultations like this are worse than no consultations at all"
FT.com / Commodities - Rise in wheat prices fastest since 1973 Wheat prices have seen the biggest one-month jump in more than three decades on the back of a severe drought in Russia; up 50% since late June
Articles & Publications
Organizing for Influence: UK Foreign Policy in an Age of Uncertainty

Chatham House report by Alex Evans and David Steven on how the UK’s new coalition government should upgrade and reform the way Britain conducts foreign policy (June 2010) Download Report

The Long Crisis Seminar

Introductory remarks by David Steven at a Brookings Institution seminar on risk and resilience in the global system (March 2010)

Stop Betting the House talk

Talk given by David Steven at Gresham College on risk and resilience in the UK housing market, as part of a Long Finance Roundtable meeting (March 2010)

Time to Stop Betting the House: a response to the FSA

Report by David Steven in response to the FSA’s Mortgage Market Review

Confronting the Long Crisis of Globalization: Risk, Resilience and International Order

Brookings Institution report by Alex Evans, Bruce Jones and David Steven on how globalisation could fail – and how it could be made more resilient. Published to coincide with the 40th anniversary World Economic Forum in Davos.

Hitting Reboot – where next for climate after Copenhagen

Report by Alex Evans and David Steven analysing the post-Copenhagen context on climate change, including a proposed 12 point action plan. Written for the Brookings Institution / NYU Center on International Cooperation Managing Global Insecurity programme.

Climate Change and Hunger: Responding to the challenge

World Food Programme report on the state of the science on what climate change means for hunger, plus policy recommendations. Authored by IPCC Impacts Chair Martin Parry with Mark Rosengrant, Tim Wheeler and Global Dashboard’s Alex Evans (December 2009)

Scarcity, security and institutional reform

Presentation by Alex Evans to a seminar organised for the UN Department of Political Affairs by the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (August 2009)

The Resilience Doctrine

Article on risk and resilience by Alex Evans and David Steven – part of a special in World Politics Review on risk and resilience in a globalized age (July 2009)

An Institutional Architecture for Climate Change

Report by Alex Evans and David Steven exploring the future international institutional requirements for managing climate change, and including three scenarios for climate institutions between now and 2030. Commissioned by the UK Department for International Development. (May 2009)

Risks and Resilience in the New Global Era

Article by Alex Evans and David Steven exploring resilience as a political agenda – part of a special edition of Renewal on the transformation of foreign policy (February 2009)

A Tale of Two Cities

Climate and cities think piece, co-authored by David Steven and the British Council’s Peter Upton (29 January 2009)

The Feeding of the Nine Billion

Chatham House pamphlet by Alex Evans on how scarcity issues will shape the outlook for global food production, and the actions that policymakers need to take at the international level and in developing countries to ensure food security in the 21st century

2009 – A Year for International Reform

Paper by David Steven, presented to “Reforming International Institutions – Meeting the Challenges of the 21st Century,” a conference organized by the United Nations University and the British Embassy in Tokyo (Jan 2009).

Food prices: what next?

Speech by Alex Evans at the Tomorrow Network (25 November 2008)

A Bretton Woods II Worthy of the Name

Paper by Alex Evans and David Steven on financial reform and wider multilateralism, published ahead of the G20 ‘Bretton Woods II’ Summit (November 2008).

The Future of Resilience

Speech by David Steven to RUSI Conference on UK Resilience (8 October 2008)

Towards a Theory of Influence

Chapter by Alex Evans and David Steven in the Foreign & Commonwealth Office publication, ‘Engagement: public diplomacy in a globalised world’ (July 2008). Download Chapter

Multilateralism for an Age of Scarcity

Draft report by Alex Evans exploring multilateral system reforms needed in order to manage resource scarcity issues more effectively. The final version will be published in early 2010 (July 2008)

Scarcity issues and conflict in Africa

Speech by Alex Evans at UK Parliament (8 July 2008)

A Low Carbon World – Pathways to a Global Deal

Speech by David Steven at the UNU G8 Symposium (4 July 2008)

Climate, scarcity and multilateralism

Speech by Alex Evans to United Nations Association UK (7 June 2008)

The new public diplomacy and Afghanistan

Speech by David Steven to the UK Defence Academy’s Advanced Research and Assessment Group seminar on Strategic Communications, Public Diplomacy and Afghanistan (4 June 2008).

Technology and Public Diplomacy

Speech by David Steven to the University of Westminster Symposium on Transformational Public Diplomacy (30 April 2008).

Rising Food Prices: Drivers and Implications for Development

Briefing paper by Alex Evans, published through Chatham House’s food programme (April 2008).

Looking Forward: how do we build resilience?

Speech by David Steven to RUSI Conference on Critical National Infrastructure (16 April 2008).

Shooting the Rapids: multilateralism and global risks

Paper by Alex Evans and David Steven, commissioned by Gordon Brown and presented to heads of state at the Progressive Governance Summit (April 2008).

Beyond a Zero-Sum Game on Climate Change

Chapter by Alex Evans and David Steven, as part of the British Council’s Transatlantic Network 2020 book ‘Talking Trans-Atlantic’ (March 2008).

From Bali to Copenhagen: towards an endgame for global climate policy?

Article by Alex Evans for the Environmental Policy & Law Journal (January 2008).

Climate Change: The State of the Debate

Report by Alex Evans and David Steven, written for the London Accord (December 2007).

The Post-Kyoto Bidding War: bringing developing countries into the fold

New paper by Alex Evans on climate policy after 2012 from the Center on International Cooperation (October 2007).

Alternative CSR: the Foreign & Commonwealth Office

Chapter on the FCO from Manchester University Press’s Alternative Comprehensive Spending Review, by David Steven (September 2007).

Fixing the UK’s Foreign Policy Apparatus: A Memo to Gordon Brown

Note by Alex Evans and David Steven about how to restructure the UK’s foreign policy system in order to manage trans-boundary global risks better (April 2007).

Evaluation and the New Public Diplomacy

Talk given by David Steven at the Wilton Park conference: The Future of Public Diplomacy. Focuses on strategies to drive public diplomacy to the heart of the foreign policy armoury (March 2007).

Articles and Publications

YouTube Preview Image

Yay for humanitarian workers | Comment

YouTube Preview Image

A complete history of the Soviet Union, arranged to the melody of Tetris | Comments Off

YouTube Preview Image

How to do TV weather | Comments Off

YouTube Preview Image

‘Restrepo’ – trailer | Comments Off

YouTube Preview Image

The Peckham Terminator (nsfw) | 5 Comments

More What we're watching

Key Posts
Global Dashboard Drinks 2010-

And a great time was had by all… Thanks so much to ace photographer, Brent Jones, for taking the pics… (Head here for the full size slideshow.)

Why Britain needs a National Intelligence Council1

Britain’s new National Security Council is built along much the same lines as its counterpart on the other side of the Atlantic – but if we’re copying the American model, how come we didn’t create a National Intelligence Council to go with it? In the US, the NIC partly plays the role that the Joint Intelligence Committee [...]

Whatever happened to interdependence?2

A battle is shaping up between advocates of a morally based foreign policy and cheerleaders for ‘the national interest’. But how come no-one talks about interdependence anymore?

When the art of the possible won’t cut it5

So we should deal with Copenhagen’s failure by embracing bottom-up voluntary action and switching to a more upbeat narrative of green collar jobs and green new deals? I’m not buying.

Organizing for Influence: our new Chatham House report-

Our new Chatham House report on how the UK should organise its foreign polcy is now published – looking at national security, global systems and fragile states.

The future of globalisation? We could tell you, but we’d have to kill you1

The OECD has a sophisticated new maritime transport costs database that will help answer what happens to international trade under peak oil or tight emission controls – but its publications is being blocked by the US

The Long Financial Crisis (updated)2

Maybe the global financial crisis started back in the 1990s…

The UN, EU and civilian peace ops-

The EU needs an independent review to get a grip of its civilian peacekeeping efforts.