Cast your mind back five years to 2006, to when environmentalism gripped the world. We were all shocked into buying different lightbulbs by the apocalyptic forecasts of the Stern report, and Al Gore, with the aid of an array of impressive scatter charts, was King Green. It seemed that we were all on course to become bona fide tree huggers.
But it hasn’t quite happened – not yet at least – and if anything, the public appetite for the fight against global warming seems to be waning. In the current economic gloom, everyone seems to have reverted to their more immediate priorities; we’re happy to wallow in the reassuring belief that consumption drives growth, as we click “confirm” on another short haul flight.
So perhaps we’re now suffering from environmental fatigue, and perhaps we’re fed up with being lectured to by a bunch of lentil-munching cyclists. Have the eco-warriors pushed us too far in their attempt to amend our ways? Have we discovered that, when all is said and done, we’re just not that bothered about rising tides in the Maldives? Of course, there are those who dissent from the consensus that we’re headed towards a catastrophe, and advise us to ignore the people they feel are doom-mongers peddling pseudoscience.
How then, should the threat of global warming influence our behaviour? Should we heed the warnings of floods, droughts, burning forests and a world of environmental refugees and change our ways? Or should we maintain that we’re not going to allow the polar bears and our grandchildren to ruin our lives while we rev up our engines and revel in and the pleasures of unabated consumption?
Read Full Post »
"Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, But to be young was very heaven!" So wrote William Wordsworth at the start of the French Revolution, and that spirit of euphoria still broadly infects the young people who massed in their tens of thousands in Egypt and Tunisia to oust their hated rulers. But in countries with no tradition of democracy, where corruption is entrenched and jobs are scarce, the political and economic aspirations of these youthful revolutionaries are likely to be disappointed. Add to that the fact that the Islamists are far better organised than the liberal groups and are set to come out on top in the forthcoming elections, and things begin to look very gloomy indeed.
But is this view all too pessimistic? The fundamental barrier of fear has been removed and the new democrats are mobilising themselves to make sure that the benefits of change trickle down to all. There's even talk of a possible split amongst the Islamists between the reactionary old guard and a more open-minded younger generation. As one of the two young Egyptians taking part in this debate will argue, if their demands aren't met, "the Egyptian masses know their way back to Tahrir Square!"
Read Full Post »
Proposing the motion is James Groves, Head of Education at think-tank Policy Exchange. Opposing the motion is Reni Eddo-Lodge, a student and Guardian blogger.
Read Full Post »
Posted in Ideas, Britain, Activism on Oct 19th, 2010 Comments
Voluntary euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide is legal in the US state of Oregon, Belgium, the Netherlands and Switzerland, and more than 90 British citizens have taken advantage of Swiss laws that allow them to die with help from doctors and nurses at the Dignitas clinic in Zurich. But in Britain, the 1961 Suicide Act states that while suicide is not illegal, "a person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another, or an attempt by another to commit suicide, shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years".
Debbie Purdy, a woman from Bradford who suffers from multiple sclerosis, has led a high-profile campaign to change the law. She took on the Director of Public Prosecutions in the High Courts, seeking clarification that her husband wouldn't be prosecuted if he helped her to travel to Dignitas. But despite her best efforts, the realities of ever-ageing politicians and public support, so far politicians have been squeamish about changing the law.
Many of our audience were swayed into changing their mind over the course of this debate. Will you be?
Speaking for the motion - Emily Jackson, Debbie Purdy and Mary Warnock
Speaking against the motion - Alex Carlile QC, Richard Harries and Patrick Stone
Read Full Post »
When Israeli commandos boarded a ship, the Mavi Marmara, which was part of a flotilla attempting to breach its blockade of Gaza on Monday 31st May, the result was a firefight. Nine passengers died and dozens more were wounded, sparking fury about the behaviour of both sides. Another ship, the Rachel Corrie, immediately set off to make another attempt to reach Gazan ports. It was stopped by the Israeli navy and diverted to Ashdod, a port in Israel, without violence on Saturday. The 11 activists on board were repatriated. The following day, at least four Palestinians were killed when Israeli navy commandos opened fire on what they said was a squad of militants in diving suits off the coast of Gaza. These events have provoked international controversy about the legality of Israel's actions and its treatment of Gaza - but also about the protesters' intentions and the long term consequences of this week's events.
Read Full Post »
Posted in Britain, Activism on Oct 1st, 2008 Comments
The panel discuss the merits and pitfalls of the proposed third runway at Heathrow.
Arguing in favour of the motion are Tom Kelly, Lord Soley and Colin Stanbridge.
Arguing against the motion are Mark Lynas, Sir Peter Hall and Vince Cable.
Read Full Post »
The panel debate whether capitalism offers a viable solution for the challenge of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and whether carbon trading can solve the climate change crisis without damaging economic growth.
Arguing in favour of the motion are Tim Harford, John Redwood, and Eric Bettelheim.
Arguing against the motion are Lord Lawson, Frances Cairncross, and David Rieff.
Read Full Post »
Nine months on from the 'Danish Cartoon' controversy, the panel discuss the limits of free speech - should it include the licence to offend ?
Arguing for the motion are Kenan Malik, Lisa Appignanesi and Alain Finkielkraut.
Arguing against the motion are David Cesarani, Francesca Klug and Tariq Ramadan.
Click here for more details.
Read Full Post »
Standard Podcasts [1:17:33m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (Loading)
