You can't win a war if you can't win a battle.

It may be a common saying in popular culture "you may have won the battle but you've lost the war", but the irony of applying that same logic to the fight against global warming, is far from funny.

In Australia at the moment, we are struggling to put in place an ETS (emissions trading scheme) to combat climate change. It has been delayed for a year, the chief supporter and contributor, Ross Garnaut, is see-sawing between accepting and rejecting the proposal plus there have also been large concessions granted to heavy polluters, such as the coal and aluminum industry. Green groups have criticised the Australian government for not doing enough. The proposed CO2 reduction target is a binding 5% on 1999 levels, with a provision to increase that to 20% if there is a global consensus. The proposal for instituting an ETS was suffering many setback, even before the financial crisis hit.

The thing is, if we can't get up a national plan that actively fights climate change, then what hope to we have to get a global agreement up, let alone actual results! If we can't win any battles (nationally or internationally) against climate change, then there is no way we can win a war.

Developing nations see the economic and social prosperity of the developed west, and so they
try to emulate it. What the West have just realised over the last decade, is that it's actions are causing climate change. Because these West nations are more likely to have stable governments and a knowledgeable populous, it would seem that an agreement and a course of actions could be taken. However, short sighted economic prosperity are hindering these efforts. Emerging nations can't be convinced by powerful nations to take economic 'hits' to protect the environment, especially when the West are a) already developed and b) not taking a course of actions themselves. So while diplomatic fingers point at "who is and who's going" to cause climate change, overall CO2 emissions continue to rise.

But despite this pessimistic outlook, there is still hope. In Copenhagen towards the end of this year, we may come to a global agreement and start to see some action. What we must do until then, is keep pushing the 'green bandwagon' and hope that we get where we want to go. Because if no one pushes, the cart won't push itself.

Newspaper Darwinism

There is no doubt about it, the old Newspaper is dying.

No, it's not due to TV or Radio. Its due to what you could consider the greatest invention since the wheel, the Internet.

You're currently reading a blog on the Internet. You've probably been on Facebook, YouTube or Google searched something already. The Internet is a powerful tool, connecting and informing us.

That part of informing us, used to be the job of the Newspapers, but more and more people are moving to the Internet. They're choosing it as their point of access for information and entertainment. Any why not? It's up to date (almost live), can be more comprehensive, you can search for the exact news and information you want, and if that doesn't satisfy you, just Google or look at another news source. And most of this is FREE. So it would seem crazy not to get your news and information from the Internet. But this is where we delve into the murky world of the reliability of the Internet.

The downsides, are that each page you load is full with ads. Most articles are quite brief, and more and more articles are on celebrities or gossip. So it is difficult to read any substantive articles on a screen, and depending on your resource, it may not always be accurate.

But aside from this brief comparison of Internet information, what I want to know (and I hope you want to know too) is where are the newspapers going?

Wherever I find a situation where I can apply Darwin's theory of evolution (it is one of my favourite theories), I apply it, and here it goes. ...

Following the theory of evolution "where the strongest survives", and by strongest meaning those who are able to change and adapt to their situation, and be the best, Newspapers will do the same. The Internet has changed, and will adapt to be even more user friendly, thus becoming the main source of information. Newspapers on the other hand, will become specialised. In becoming specialised, they will be the 'strongest in their field'. Providing detailed and in depth analysis from reputable resources by experienced journalists. They will report on major national and international issues, and attempt to be very broad scoped in who their target audience is. Thus while most of the newspapers will die out, the strongest will remain and fulfil that specialised role.

While most Internet information is free at the moment, in the future, to access quality content, you will have to pay for it! For newspapers as well, the cost of the content will be passed onto the consumer, as advertising goes digital. But I think that it is a good theory non the less. Some people believe that Newspapers will die out altogether, or just go completely digital. That may be the case in the long term future when we all walk around with supercomputer i-phones, but until then I think we will go with the good old paper. Recycled of course in this environmentally conscience age.

LINK

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13649304
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13642689

Eurovision 2009 report

Ahh, Eurovision. It is something that you have to see to believe.

When most of the countries in Europe (and there are quite a lot of them) gather together in one big event to sing and dance, you know that it is going to be some event.

This years outstanding performances were...

Ukraine. They went with a 'sex on a stick' style performance, which was similar to Germany's song, though Germany didn't have glitter studded Roman centurions and a drum being pulled across the stage. The choreography and costumes left little to the imagination, that is if you could see the performance beyond the blinding lasers, lights and fireworks that were going off.

Albania was obscure, with two dwarfs and a 'green man' as backup dancers. If they were trying to convey some meaning, they failed, spectacularly.

England tried really really hard to win with an inspirational song. But it came across as a sad "woe is me, me, me, me myself and I" and more me me me me's than you could poke a stick at.

Iceland had a nice euro pop song, though it really didn't do anything spectacular for me.

Norway though was the crowning champion of the evening (by a record 300 points), with a tradition/pop mixed song titled Fairytale. YouTube it or do something like that, it's worth listening to.

Spain's entry was a massive disappointment, it was like they just pulled a singer off the street. Plus they were one of the big five that automatically gets in (they should have put a lot more effort into it!)

Russia's entry was good, very dark, guttural and obscure but worth listening to.

I was disappointed with Germany's song. It was very jazzy (which I liked), but they just over-sexed the visuals to try and bring in the votes (to which it didn't)

The performances as a whole - higher quality than last years, which was good for the ears. Unfortunately though, that meant less humour and funny entries.

Russia hosted a magnificent performance, costing over $50 million, used 40% of the worlds LCD TVs and was the biggest Eurovision ever hosted. A splendid array of performances were given by the host country, maybe with the exception of the 'pool performance'

Suspended above the crowd were shallow pools with clear bottoms. Girls splashed around, swam and half danced in the water with lights and visual effects that were quite amazing. The pools were then lowered into touching distance of the audience (many health and safety jokes were made) only then for the dancers/swimmers to "belly flop" onto the clear surface covered only by 1cm of water. It looked frightfully painful, but the audience seemed to enjoy it.

Overall, a fantastic event, to which I will wait with eager anticipation untill Norway 2010!

Advertising in the 21st Century

I personally don't appreciate or value a website that contains more advertising material than it's content. It seems almost inevitable that in this fast paced, consumerist world, that advertising is intruding more and more into our daily lives. Though as it intrudes, some of us reject it.

For those of us who think that advertising is just billboards and promotional flyers, and it is very easy to think so, you are yet another sheep whom the wool has been pulled over their eyes. Advertising in the 21st century is changing as fast as we can keep up with it. TV, Radio and print media are all saturated in it, not to even mention media/news on the Internet. Whenever you do a google search, on the right hand side will be ads. Small and subtle, but still adds. Google can now track your search history if you are a subscriber to some of their other services, thus making their adds more 'tailor made' to suit your desires (and more importantly, theirs). Anything free on the Internet will come with adds, guaranteed. (If you do find a free site without adds, let us know!) In movies, corporations will pay to have their products/logos displayed. An Apple Mac book or Dell will be the choice of computer for the computer detective, and the hero's drink of choice will be either Coke or Pepsi. As technology evolves to the point where you can block the adds that appear on your TV screen, advertising agencies will only use different methods to make you buy a product. This innovation, is aimed at trying to sell us a product, without us even knowing it is being sold to us.


Sp it seems that wherever we move now days, something is trying to be sold to us. When creating this blog, I was encouraged to put adds on it. So I ask, am I writing the content, attracting an audience, just so a product can be sold to them? While we may be able to accept what is occurring, I believe that knowing why and how we are being encouraged to buy is is the key to knowing when something is being sold to you.



http://www.abc.net.au/tv/gruentransfer/

Getting Started

In economic and political times like these, almost everyone has an opinion. Combine these opinions with technology, and we have an opinion 'overload'.

Some will argue that this is bad, for reasons to which they are entitled to hold. But I think that it is a good thing. Hearing others opinions, expressing ones own and just being part of the whole 'opinion circle' is important. The art is not in having the right argument or opinion, but by being able to accept others, make a judgement, and stand by what you think is right.

And for these reasons and more, I write.