The small things that happen everyday

 

Op-Ed Columnist - The Happiest People

Hmmm. You think it’s a coincidence? Costa Rica is one of the very few countries to have abolished its army, and it’s also arguably the happiest nation on earth.

What sets Costa Rica apart is its remarkable decision in 1949 to dissolve its armed forces and invest instead in education. Increased schooling created a more stable society, less prone to the conflicts that have raged elsewhere in Central America. Education also boosted the economy, enabling the country to become a major exporter of computer chips and improving English-language skills so as to attract American eco-tourists.

I’m not antimilitary. But the evidence is strong that education is often a far better investment than artillery.

In Costa Rica, rising education levels also fostered impressive gender equality so that it ranks higher than the United States in the World Economic Forum gender gap index. This allows Costa Rica to use its female population more productively than is true in most of the region. Likewise, education nurtured improvements in health care, with life expectancy now about the same as in the United States — a bit longer in some data sets, a bit shorter in others.

Rising education levels also led the country to preserve its lush environment as an economic asset. Costa Rica is an ecological pioneer, introducing a carbon tax in 1997. The Environmental Performance Index, a collaboration of Yale and Columbia Universities, ranks Costa Rica at No. 5 in the world, the best outside Europe.

This emphasis on the environment hasn’t sabotaged Costa Rica’s economy but has bolstered it. Indeed, Costa Rica is one of the few countries that is seeing migration from the United States: Yankees are moving here to enjoy a low-cost retirement. My hunch is that in 25 years, we’ll see large numbers of English-speaking retirement communities along the Costa Rican coast.

more and better schools, and less armies

Comments [0]

Al compás de una muñeira

'Muñeira' is a traditional Galician dance. Galicia is the Spanish region where I'm now, and where my father was born. In this kind of pop video, you can listen to a very well known song here in Galicia. You can see also some of the wonderful landscapes you can enjoy near the coast.

Comments [0]

Vigo, north of Spain

Happy New Year! I'm in Vigo, at the nortwest of Spain spending some time with family.

Comments [0]

Working over New Zealand

Just amazing!

Comments [0]

What Matters Now

I have just finished reading this free ebook, with lots of small articles of one page, of different and interesting topics: Business, marketing, strategy, XXI century, people, education, management...

Read it when you have time!

Comments [0]

Digital magazine concept

I'd love to try these new tablets with these magazines, much better than reading the paper version :-)

Comments [0]

Businessmen leave London to escape from higher taxes

Did you know that there were several islands near United Kingdom which are also countries. Jersey, Guernsey (both near France) and Isle of Man (between Great Britain and Ireland). Those are the new countries of many businessmen who don't want to pay higher taxes in UK. It's going to rise from 40% to 50% next year.

They can work on week days in London and live in those Islands at weekends. Doing some numbers, if 7.000 people have moved (stats from the article) and each of them earns an average of 500.000€; the UK government is going to get 1.400 Million euros less (2.000 Million dollars).

I suppose the government will have to think on another way to get some of that money if they are working in London almost all week. Because that's a huge amount of money.

Comments [2]

Obama should Boycott Copenhagen

That's the amazing suggestion that Sarah Palin has written today. Last year the more she talked the more surprised I was. I really don't know if she believes what she is saying or if she knows that she is lying but she does it in purpouse. I thought we had enough of her, but it seems we don't, she is back!

First, she is denying thousands of reports of thousands of different science research centers. There was one center which exaggerated some results, and because of that one she implies that everyone is lying! It doesn't matter the facts, or the overwhelming scientific consensus. She is right...

Does she really think that the pollution doesn't damage the environment? Does she prefer carbon energy instead of water, wind or solar? Does she understand that we are not talking here about the weather but the global warming (don't say climate change, it's global warming)? Doesn't she understand that the petrol energy is going to end someday and that we have to start searching for better alternatives?

She says that the costs will be too high, but higher would be the environmental costs if we do nothing. I am not going to be an extremist, but I really think that we should use clean energies as soon as possible and invest much more money on those kind of energies so we can stop using petrol and carbon energies sooner than later.

She said also that energy costs rised in Europe after a cap-and-tax program. True, but it's also true that USA attacked Middle East on that time, so energy cost rose.

She should read more and be more honest, because I can't believe that she agrees with what she is saying (lobbies....)

Comments [0]

Copenhagen climate change conference

Editorial logo

 

Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.

Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year's inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world's response has been feeble and half-hearted.

• How the Copenhagen global leader came about
• Write your own editorial
• Bryony Worthington: How to make an impact
In pictures: How newspapers around the world ran the editorial

Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days. We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone.

The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea. The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based.

Few believe that Copenhagen can any longer produce a fully polished treaty; real progress towards one could only begin with the arrival of President Obama in the White House and the reversal of years of US obstructionism. Even now the world finds itself at the mercy of American domestic politics, for the president cannot fully commit to the action required until the US Congress has done so.

But the politicians in Copenhagen can and must agree the essential elements of a fair and effective deal and, crucially, a firm timetable for turning it into a treaty. Next June's UN climate meeting in Bonn should be their deadline. As one negotiator put it: "We can go into extra time but we can't afford a replay."

At the deal's heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world covering how the burden of fighting climate change will be divided — and how we will share a newly precious resource: the trillion or so tonnes of carbon that we can emit before the mercury rises to dangerous levels.

Rich nations like to point to the arithmetic truth that there can be no solution until developing giants such as China take more radical steps than they have so far. But the rich world is responsible for most of the accumulated carbon in the atmosphere – three-quarters of all carbon dioxide emitted since 1850. It must now take a lead, and every developed country must commit to deep cuts which will reduce their emissions within a decade to very substantially less than their 1990 level.

Developing countries can point out they did not cause the bulk of the problem, and also that the poorest regions of the world will be hardest hit. But they will increasingly contribute to warming, and must thus pledge meaningful and quantifiable action of their own. Though both fell short of what some had hoped for, the recent commitments to emissions targets by the world's biggest polluters, the United States and China, were important steps in the right direction.

Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down – with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of "exported emissions" so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than "old Europe", must not suffer more than their richer partners.

The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.

Many of us, particularly in the developed world, will have to change our lifestyles. The era of flights that cost less than the taxi ride to the airport is drawing to a close. We will have to shop, eat and travel more intelligently. We will have to pay more for our energy, and use less of it.

But the shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more opportunity than sacrifice. Already some countries have recognized that embracing the transformation can bring growth, jobs and better quality lives. The flow of capital tells its own story: last year for the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy than producing electricity from fossil fuels.

Kicking our carbon habit within a few short decades will require a feat of engineering and innovation to match anything in our history. But whereas putting a man on the moon or splitting the atom were born of conflict and competition, the coming carbon race must be driven by a collaborative effort to achieve collective salvation.

Overcoming climate change will take a triumph of optimism over pessimism, of vision over short-sightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature".

It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can too.

The politicians in Copenhagen have the power to shape history's judgment on this generation: one that saw a challenge and rose to it, or one so stupid that we saw calamity coming but did nothing to avert it. We implore them to make the right choice.

This editorial will be published tomorrow by 56 newspapers around the world in 20 languages including Chinese, Arabic and Russian. The text was drafted by a Guardian team during more than a month of consultations with editors from more than 20 of the papers involved. Like the Guardian most of the newspapers have taken the unusual step of featuring the editorial on their front page.

This editorial is free to reproduce under Creative Commons

Creative Commons License


'Fourteen days to seal history's judgment on this generation' by The Guardian is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Based on a work at guardian.co.uk.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/02/guardian-environment-team
(please note this Creative Commons license is valid until 18 December 2009)

• For regular email alerts about Copenhagen, sign up for the Guardian's "greenlight" newsletter.

 

Comments [0]

Going to a Classical Concert

Yesterday I had tickets for a classical concert of Handel, called "The messiah". It was played by Belarusian musicians and a Belarusian chorus. The pieces were played really good, but we missed some passion or warmth. They were very cold (as the stereotype). The best moment is when they played "Hallelujah" at the end, their second time; they started to smile and to play with more passion. I share with you a video of another concert playing "Hallelujah"

</object>

Comments [0]