Right in front of our eyes, we see the "Law"/ Application/ Society" concept in place. There's a new law being proposed - to regulate the media's reckless pursuits of information without regarding the people behind the stories, and to have a tighter control over what the press can report. Applying it, however, is being debated. David Cameron is opposed to a new regulatory body for various political reasons. Many Labour MPs are supporting this proposal, as are most of the UK press and UK citizens.
To me, society seems to be accepting of Leveson's judgment, deeming it fair, just and good policy. Society and it's people matter in policy making, so much that it seems that though judges write out law (and the length of the report already tells us how complex the issue is), it is actually people who reinforce the law.
What I question is whether it will truly be in place, and whether this new law has further implications. What about blogs and online reporting, especially in our digital age ? And does Cameron's argument that freedom of the press threatens human rights have any truth ? How will it be regulated and to what degree ?
2) Arctic and Antarctic Ice Sheets melting faster than in the last 20 years - The ice sheets are melting at a far greater rate than scientists had imagined, slightly faster than the rate the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has predicted in it's 2007 report. At this rate, sea-level rise is becoming a bigger threat than imagined, and the ice-sheet's contribution to rising sea levels is bigger than previously thought. If all the ice melts, the sea level will rise by 64m.
This scientific article ties in with another that I read, which was about the scientific updates on climate change since the IPCC's 2004 report. Both mention that the ice sheets are melting at a higher rate than previously monitored, and both express uncertainties. Both these recent articles was also vague and uncertain about the impacts and rate of melting. However, the fact that ice sheets are melting faster than before suggests that our climate is becoming warmer, and perhaps faster than we think.
The obvious question this article raises is about combating climate change. Mankind tend to focus on the short-term, immediate problems rather than long-term, slow ones like climate change. The general consensus on limate change is that humans are accelerating the warming effect due to more greenhouse gas emissions from economic and social activities. What the bigger question is - why can't we have effective, immediate policies in place to tackle reducing greenhouse gas now ?
Academic Reading
My academic reading for today was John Kingdon. He is a political analyst from the University of Michigan who wrote a book about public policies. He came up with an interesting theory as to how policy change occurs and what ingredients you need for active policy changes to form in society. I think it wholly applies to climate change and more specifically, why humans are not acting upon climate change now and leaving the problem "for later". It also gives a good insight in the way humans act, which interestingly also applies to Leveson's case as we see it in action.
John Kingdon identified the 3 main components of a problem which fuels active policy change: the "crisis" or the problem that is gathering attention and momentum, the "pre-existing solution" that already exists in society, somewhere; and the "window of opportunity" needed for the solution to be linked up with the crisis.
When the window is open for policy change, if one solution is proposed and accepted by the public, it will go ahead and gather force.
We have the problem - climate change leading to melting ice caps, which can cause flooding and harm to human livelihoods. We have the pre-existing solutions: greening, sustainability, renewables, defenses, reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
What we do not have is the window of opportunity. Surely, businesses and TNCs are using "greening" as an excuse for economic activity, seeing a window for money. But what we need is a window for full-on government intervention. But that's not really possible as countries operate independently , and it's not as simple as the Leveson Case where the legal boundaries are UK and Leveson is a British judge.
What we do not have is the window of opportunity. Instead, businesses and TNCs are using "greening" as an excuse for economic activity, seeing a window for money. Each government in each country needs to find that window and until then humans won't necessarily change our habits.
Maybe what we need is a global superpower or government. And a global judge. Everyone can be plaintiffs and defendants at the same time. We need to put out a verdict on ourselves. And as humans, we don't want to criticize ourselves and it's very hard to admit to mistakes. That is where the problem lies.
No comments:
Post a Comment