Photo: Kris Krug

Following on some of the ideas I thought about during the recently concluded Aspen Environment Forum, and also reflecting upon a very insightful class I took at the Hertie School of Governance during my first year there – a class on multilateral governance taught by Professor Inge Kaul (world expert on public goods) and Thorsten Benner (director of the Global Public Policy Institute), I wrote a piece for FutureChallenges.org on new climate change governance architectures.

Here’s the full-length article (but please visit the entire platform, as other authors feature some really instructive pieces):

Finding the right type of climate change governance architecture and driving humanity on a more sustainable path might just be the tip of the iceberg of future challenges and megatrends featured on Futurechallenges.org. Why? It is intimately linked with all of them: new governance structures (see the magic scenarios below), demographic issues (climate refugees “complement” an unsustainable industrial production and consumption pattern, which will most likely make it impossible for us to feed a growing planet of 9 billion people by 2050), biodiversity and natural resources (because of human consumption of natural resources – the same that induced climate change – ecosystems have degraded at a 30% rate between 1970 and 2003, and our ecological footprint has exceeded the Earth’s capacity by about 25% as of 2003, says WWF’s Living Planet Report, 2006 edition, security (climate change-induced resources scarcity and migration will increasingly become a source of conflict, specialists indicate, and have done so already, as the infamous case of Darfur points out).

Defining climate change is a daunting task. It’s a phenomenon that has shaped politics, economics and social activism around the world in the last couple of decades. As a result, few definitions are value-neutral. Ever since 1990, scientists summoned by the United Nations in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) define the phenomenon as “the change in average weather, which may occur in the next century as a result of human activities”. Regular dictionaries seem to ignore the alleged anthropogenic nature of climate change and define it as “periodic modifications of Earth’s climate brought about as a result of […] interactions between […] atmosphere and various other geologic, chemical, biological, and geographic factors within the Earth system”. No humans around, it seems…

The recent international negotiations at Copenhagen proved that virtually no government in the world denies the man-made nature of climate change – at least not according to their leaders’ statements. On the people’s side, some nations are still deeply distrustful of the phenomenon: Just over a half of the American adults (51 percent) are either alarmed or concerned about global warming, says audience segmentation analysis “Global Warming’s Six Americas”.

Leaving the “why” aside and assuming that humans did it, as the shadow side of the success of their industrial production (for more info on the “science” behind climate change, check out the Learn Section on Futurechallenges.org, let’s take a look at the “how”. How are humans supposed to address climate change?

Scenario 1: Integrated approach via multilateral treaty and emissions reduction protocol

Climate change is a global problem and climate change mitigation is a global public good. Formal modeling exercises point out that an integrated climate architecture is the most effective solution for climate change abatement (Biermann et al., 2010). In English, please?  A multilateral agreement bringing on board all countries of the globe, containing a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. Mandatory and ambitious individual emission reduction targets.  After all, scientists claims that no single actor (country, region or sector) can achieve the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions required to stabilize atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases at the level necessary to avoid a global catastrophe.

Scenario 2: Leave it to the nation state

Climate change is affecting countries as we speak. 300,000 people die every year because of unusual climate patterns (floods, droughts, monsoons, etc.). Human and economic losses occur everywhere in the world, so it’s in the individual interest of each country to address this issue. China, California and the European Union, most experts say, have adopted very ambitious unilateral emission reduction targets. A less effective scenario than an integrated global accord (emissions and climate catastrophes don’t really use a passport for getting across countries and continents…), yet maybe a more realistic one. The caveat: under this scenario, some countries will end up paying the bill for climate change mitigation, while others will free-ride on their efforts (e.g.: neighbouring states are clear free-riders on California’s investments to combat climate change).

Scenario 3: Bring in non-state actors

Experts sometimes highlight coordination venues (partnerships, networks, the International Energy Agency, etc.) and non-state actors (businesses, NGOs) as promising locations for climate change governance. The market-based solution of carbon cap and trade (also known as emissions trading, i.e. a market-based approach of offering incentives to firms for achieving reductions in the emission of pollutants)  is considered by many the perfect economic solution for curbing emissions. Public-private governance arrangements (e.g. United Nations Global Compact, “type-2” agreements concluded at the 2002 World Summit for Sustainable Development, etc.) might also be superior to traditional forms of inter-governmental co-operation.

Scenario 4: The Elite Club solution

Only 24 countries are responsible for 70 percent of world emissions. Why try to bring in 192 into a global deal? Multilateral global governance institutions such as the the United Nations General Assembly or Framework Convention for Climate Change have proven inefficient and slow time and again. Thus, wouldn’t it be better, analysts argue, to have the issue of climate change and climate security dealt with by a small group of elite states, in a G-like climate arrangement? Prominent American analysts such as Strobe Talbott, former United States Deputy Secretary of State and currently the President of the Brookings Institute seems to think so (at least according to his intervention at the recently concluded Aspen Environment Forum 2010). The arrangement might definitely work, but how do you deal with issues such as democracy, inclusivity and free-riding in this case?

As a European, whenever I attend international environmental events I never cease to be amazed by the admiration EU climate change policies are triggering globally. When I’m at home, the same set of policies seems packed with stumbling blocks. The EU has adopted the 20-20-20 Climate Package (under these mandatory energy targets, member states must achieve a reduction of 20% greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels, 20% of consumption from renewable sources, and a 20% reduction in primary energy use via improvements in energy efficiency) – and all of these, at a EU-wide level, by 2020. However, current trends indicate that 3 (Italy, Spain, Denmark) out of 15 old EU member states won’t even meet up their Kyoto targets, let alone something more ambitious. An East – West divide on climate change inside the European Union has steadily taken hold (Source: Euractiv). For instance, Poland’s energy mix is 80% dependent on coal, and the Polish government has clearly stated it needs more time to meet the 20-20-20 objectives. Bulgaria goes against mainstream EU opinion and advocates for nuclear energy as the only way of achieving its targets. A bird’s eye assessment of the climate change governance architecture promoted by the EU seems to indicate both a national model (Scenario 2) and a push for an integrated global regime (Scenario 1: the EU usually takes up stewardship in negotiating global consensus among world powers). How does the national/ union-wide ambition score given 27 different economic and energy supply patterns? How does the discourse of global leadership and “arbitrage” match the sad reality that EU leaders weren’t even present in the room when the loose Copenhagen Accord was brokered? For the moment, Europe seems to be begging both questions…

Is there a perfect climate change architecture? Not really. All four scenarios mentioned above indicate an inevitable trade-off between efficiency and realism. As efficient as an integrated global agreement might be, pushing it through regular multilateral negotiations is close to fantasy. National or regional unilateral targets are achievable, but California’s saved CO2 will easily be nullified by Texas’s rampant emissions. Most likely, striving (and striving fast!) towards a combined architecture will achieve some positive results. After all, we only have one planet, but we act as if we had four…

Aspen Meadows Campus, hosting Aspen Environment Forum 2010

Without even pretending to do justice to the 100+ very impressive names on the speakers’ list at the Aspen Environment Forum, I thought of sharing the work of some of the people I’ve listened to and/ or engaged with during the forum. Their creativity and intellectual profundity are an incredible source of inspiration for many.

It was only during the third day of the conference that I met probably the most charismatic and inspirational speaker of the forum, the Iraqi-born American urban planner T.H. Culhane, who runs the German – Egyptian NGO Solar CITIES. Maybe that happened for a reason, as the day’s title was “New Horizons: Building a Sustainable World”. T.H. brings tech-knowledge into the world’s poorest neighbourhoods, from Cairo to Guatemala, educating people on industrial ecology solutions for their communities. The results: “integrated solar water and kitchen-waste-to-cooking-fuel-and-electric-generator-fuel biogas systems”, composting systems, rooftop gardening systems and a bunch of other hyper cool innovations. I’ve asked T.H. whether he thinks his solutions are scalable given the unprecedented rate of migration from rural to urban areas. His solution: ask each and every newcomer to produce his/her own energy! I’m a bit skeptical on the feasibility of that one, but his solutions are nonetheless amazing.

The third day made me run into America’s first eco-friendly cowboy, Doug Fine. He has authored the bestseller “Farewell, My Subaru” (which sold out during the forum, without me being able to get my hands on a copy). He’s intensely funny and shows by example how people can live petroleum free in one year, without giving up any digital age comforts (his solutions include a sustainable diet, vegetable-oil powered autos and solar power). Without preaching that everybody should move to New Mexico and herd goats, he makes a pretty convincing case on small steps we can all take to reduce oil dependency. And he’s damn funny.

A puzzling presence at the summit was Sudanese Ambassador and chief negotiator of the G77 on climate change, Mr. Lumumba Di-Aping. The developed world has pretty much blamed and shamed his stubbornness for the Copenhagen negotiations failure. I’ve talked to him a bit about the responsibilities of developing countries in the face of climate change; his position is that developing countries have to factor in their development needs and that their only fundamental responsibility is to develop (albeit, following a different path). Still, he was saying that China can and should be brought to contribute by a universal cap on carbon emissions. Easier said than done, but then again, it’s valuable to try to really understand how G77 leaders think about these issues…

Great insights on sustainable food and agriculture came from sustainable chef Barton Seaver (his website is amazing, totally recommend it), from program director for Animal Welfare Approved Andrew Gunther (independent food labeling granted to small farmers across the US for raising their animals with highest welfare standards – despite talking to Andrew, still a dilemma for me how to get the political will to factor in negative externalities, like environmental costs, in the price of the food we buy, so that finally sustainable food became affordable for all), and from Melina Shannon-DiPietro (who’s managed to implement some really effective and creative marketing communication tools to implement sustainable dining in the Yale University campus).

So many, many more amazing speakers to highlight… TBC (on energy and the oil spill in particular).

Till then, to your emotional enjoyment, I give you some recommendations from the Aspen Environment Forum co-organizer, the National Geographic. A remarkable part of the speakers and participants were NG Explorers (check out more about their Emerging Explorer and Explorer-in-Residence programs). Each day of the forum was accompanied by photographic storytelling with photographers Joel Sartore (America’s most prominent photographer of rare and endangered species… check out this absolutely amazing short movie of his) and George Steinmetz (an expert in aerial landscapes).

PS: I was a Scholar at the Aspen Environment Forum, and I hope many more fellows of the Aspen Young Leaders Programme of the Aspen Institute Romania will attend future editions of the forum.

Un proiect la care muncesc de ceva vreme creste din ce in ce mai mare… Thank you, dear team, for making it happen. Thank you, dear high-school coordinators, for being creative and brave. Vineri, 26 februarie, 16 licee din 10 orase din Romania proiecteaza simultan filme green in cadrul Cluburilor de Film One World!

Mai jos, comunicatul de presa!

În ultimii ani, cineaştii români câştigă constant premii internaţionale prestigioase, de cele mai multe ori în ciuda susţinerii precare din partea statului sau a sistemului de educaţie. 

Continuând o tradiție regională inaugurată de People in Need din Republica Cehă, Asociaţia Oricum, organizatorul festivalului de scurtmetraje ShortsUP, a adus în România Cluburile de Film One World, care se concretizează în proiecții și dezbateri lunare în 16 licee din Bucureşti şi din ţară. Proiectul încearcă să suplinească lipsa educaţiei cinematografice în şcoli şi constă în organizarea unor cluburi de film documentar cu tema drepturilor omului și chestiunilor globale. Filmele de lungmetraj, dar şi cele de mediu şi scurtmetraj ating tematici globale precum migraţia, discriminarea, sărăcia, rasismul, schimbările climatice sau conflictele armate.         

Pe 26 februarie, liceenii din 10 oraşe vor vedea, în cadrul Cluburilor de Film One World, o serie de scurtmetraje cu temă ecologică, între care Carpa Diem, recunoscut de UNESCO drept cel mai bun film despre drepturile omului în 2007 şi Varmints, o animaţie emoţionantă, nominalizată la premiile Bafta în 2009.    

Răzvan Crişan, fondator al Asociaţiei Oricum: “Credem în iniţiativa tinerilor și în pasiunea lor pentru film. De aceea, cluburile sunt organizate de Oricum, dar coordonate chiar de către liceeni, aşa că proiectul are o importantă componentă de leadership în industriile creative. Cei mai pasionați liceeni au participat la ateliere de lucru în România şi în Cehia, au învăţat despre drepturile omului şi au aflat de la profesionişti despre culisele realizării filmelor documentare.” 

În prezent, cluburile de film au strâns peste 2000 liceeni în 16 licee din 10 oraşe: Bucureşti, Timişoara, Cluj, Constanţa, etc. În fiecare lună, proiectul se extinde în alte localităţi, crescând astfel constant numărul de copii implicaţi în proiect, dar şi baza de filme documentare proiectate.

Proiectul îşi mai propune, pe lângă educaţie cinematografică, să ajute la stimularea gândirii critice şi la exploatarea resurselor creative ale tinerilor, atât prin interacţiunea cu mesajele filmelor, cât şi prin dezbateri. Fiecare proiecţie lunară este urmată de o discuţie cu invitaţi din lumea filmului sau a organizaţiilor nonguvernamentale. Educaţia nonformală, atât de puţin folosită în şcolile din România,  oferă o mai mare libertate de alegere şi de formare a personalităţii în funcţie de afinităţi şi talente.   

Liceele în care va avea loc proiecţia simultană de vineri 26 februarie, începând cu ora 12.00:

În Bucureşti: Colegiul Naţional George Coşbuc, Colegiul Naţional Sf. Sava, Colegiul Naţional Gheorghe Lazăr, Liceul Teoretic Ion Neculce, Colegiul Naţional Iulia Haşdeu, Colegiul Naţional I. L. Caragiale, Colegiul Economic Virgil Madgearu

În ţară: Colegiul Naţional Alexandru Lahovari – Râmnicu Vâlcea, Colegiul Naţional Costache Negruzzi – Iaşi, Liceul Grigore Moisil – Timişoara, Colegiul Naţional Traian – Drobeta Turnu Severin, Liceul Teoretic Marin Preda – Turnu Măgurele, Liceul Teoretic Neagoe Basarab – Olteniţa, Liceul Teoretic Lucian Blaga – Constanţa, Liceul Teoretic Ana Ipătescu – Gherla, jud. Cluj, Colegiul Naţional George Bariţiu – Cluj Napoca.   

Cluburile de Film One World este un proiect finanțat de către programul Tineret în Acțiune al Uniunii Europene, care își propune să sprijine inițiativele tinerilor și promovarea valorilor europene. Tineret în Acțiune este programul comunitar care implementează cadrul legal de susținere a activităților de învățare nonformale pentru tineri.

Proiecţia simultană a Cluburilor de Film One World este un eveniment unic în România şi în Europa de Est şi se desfăşoară în parteneriat cu Asociaţia People in Need din Republică Cehă, Centrul Ceh din România, Fondul ONU pentru Populaţie, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Centrul Cultural American şi DocuMentor. 

Mai multe detalii puteţi afla de pe site-ul www.cluburidefilmoneworld.ro  

The figures
- there’s great news: the proportion of people living in extreme economic poverty, i.e. on less than $1.25/ day (at 2005 prices, adjusted for purchasing power parity) had dropped worldwide from 52% in 1981 to 26% in 2005

- the bad news: there are great regional disparities – China and East Asia in general, which used to be the poorest in the 80s (80% of the population affected by extreme poverty) have reduced their percentage of poor drastically (18% in 2005); however, sub-Saharan African has kept its poverty rate unchanged in the last 40 years, at about 50% of its population. Moreover, because of population increase, in absolute numbers the number of the poor has doubled (from 200 million in 1981 to 380 million in 2005)

Causes of Poverty
- colonial causes (economists like Daron Acemoglu and others prove that the institutions left behind by European colonists have persisted till nowadays and have influenced poverty levels; where colonists left “bad” rules in place (i.e. no protection for private property, etc), low economic development and ultimately stagnation occured
- regional characteristics (type of climate – exposure to flooding and typhoons, etc)
- community-level characteristics (level of education, level of services)
- household characteristics (women empowerment) 

These causes also act as effects (you are poor because you are not educated and because you are not educated you remain power) so the problem gets more complicated! Tana! The poverty cycle!

The solutions

1. Foreign aid (main proponent: Jeffrey Sachs; & Bono!)
No developed country (with the exception of the Nordic countries) has actually ever fulfilled its international commitments of giving 0.7% of the National Gross Income to developing countries. We’ve never given enough aid and we’ve given low quality aid (technical assistance, food aid, etc). Poor countries are caught in a poverty trap (they are poor because they lack the basic necessities of health, education, and infrastructure, and because they are poor, they cannot invest in these basic necessities). The role of financing assistance is to close this gap and help burdened countries get started. Poor countries need $130 billion more aid by 2050.

2. No aid! Create markets and economic activity! (main proponent: William Easterly) 
Aid agencies lack transparency and clear objectives. Aid is fragmented (the worldwide aid budget is split between am multitude of donors and projects and you cannot scale up success). Aid is similar to central planning, top-down solutions. Aid doesn’t work. Instead, you need to have bottom-up piecemeal solutions – create, through microcredits, functioning markets in poor communities and help the poor help themselves. Once more and more economic agents appear, countries will break out of poverty. 

3. Liberalize trade! (main proponent: the International Monetary Fund)
IMF statistics prove that free trade remains a cornerstone institution for economic development.  Critics (Dani Rodrick) say that free trade opportunities have only limited ability to trigger growth, because of inequities in the international trade system. If we liberalize agricultural trade, poor nations lose and the winners are taxpayers in rich nations (because they don’t have to pay taxes any longer).

4. Create good institutions (proponent: the IMF)
Following on Acemoglu’s proof that institutions (i.e. good rules of the game) are the key to growth), fans of these arrangements say we need to help the poor have stronger property rights, lower corruption, have better governance. Raising institutional quality has an exponential impact on economic growth. Institutions create a level playing field and both labour and capital are protected. These institutions have, however, to follow the number 1 tenet of macroeconomic stability. The whole macroecononomic stability mantra is criticized by Joseph Stiglitz, former head of the World Bank, who says it is too narrow and doesn’t have longer term growth in view. Instead, it only un-necessarily burdens transition countries.

5. Synthesis/ aka “Do It All!” (proponent: Paul Collier)
To really help the poor, the West needs to get as serious about it as Americans have been towards war-wrecked Europe in the 40s. There are 50 failed states in the world (the homelands of the “bottom billion”) and we have to help them via aid, reversing our trade policies, reversing our security policy and strengthening their governance and institutions (including by forcing our own multinationals to abide by fair practices). However, it could be that “doing it all” sort of means “we don’t really know what to do”.

This is the puzzle my friends. Looking forward to your creative thinking! 

Last semester I took a core class at Hertie, called the “Public Policy Process – German Budgeting”. As our final project, we were supposed to get into the shoes of the German Ministry for Family, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (you don’t want to imagine how the full name sounds in German) and propose a new budget for 2010 for our ministry.

Initially, I thought I would learn a bit of number crunching and plenty of insights into German politicking. I ended up learning more about family/ population policy and demography (especially within a OECD context) than I ever imagined. Also, I ended up being totally alarmed by how little attention decision-makers pay to these matters. In Germany, they are at least on the agenda, while in Romania… Oh, my!

Going back to our case study, the Statistical Office of Germany basically expects the country’s population to shrink from 82.5 million inhabitants in 2006 to 65-70 million by 2060.  This might not seem terrible at first sight, but here’s what’s behind the figures: Germans are constantly living more – by 2060 the average German citizen will live 7 years longer than he/ she is expected to live now. However, Germany has one of the lowest fertility rates in Europe, i.e. 1.38 children/ woman (compare that to 2.1 children/ woman, which is the rate it takes for the population of a country to replenish itself). Only Central and Eastern European countries score worse than Germany, while France and the UK have begun to increase their rates, as a consequence of some very smart public policies. Thus, because on the hand people live more and, on the other hand, people have less children, in 2060 there will be 94 dependent persons (children and senior citizens) for each 100 Germans. Out of these 94 persons, two thirds will be senior citizens and one third only children. 10 million out of Germany’s predicted 65 million citizens will be women and men older than 80.

What does this mean in terms of impact on social security, urban development, healthcare? Roughly, it means disaster! What’s worse even, it’s a disaster the full countours of which are still difficult to predict.

However, the good news is that smart policies can make the picture a little less gloomy… Just look at how the age piramids below like… An increase of just 0.2 in the current fertility rate can work wonders.

How can Germany achieve this? Well, by implementing two simple solutions (so simple that I was totally amazed they hadn’t been applied yet):

•        target increases in parental allowances at the second child (and subsequent children)
•        extend daycare and kindergarten working schedules until 7 pm (it’s amazing how German women simply cannot work and be mothers at the same time because they don’t have enough facilities to leave their children and the few which exist close at 1 pm!!!)

To conclude, I was totally amazed during this project to discover how different family policies can be in two relatively similar OECD countries (France and Germany) and how simple, common sense solutions can work wonders in population policy. And yes, demography can be more exciting than I thought!

Cum zic si in engleza mai sus, nu sunt convinsa ca voi deveni din nou un blogger activ. Din cand in cand insa, citesc, aud sau fac lucruri despre care vreau sa vorbesc si altora. Deci sa nu zicem inca hop pana nu trecem pragul. La recitire placuta! 

Consiliul Tineretului din Romania, platforma nationala a organizatiilor non-guvernamentale de tineret, a preluat acest proiect anul acesta si a si lansat sesiunea de aplicatii pentru a recruta noi delegati. Asadar,

Consiliul Tineretului din România cu sprijinul Ministerul Afacerilor Externe declară deschis procesul de aplicaţie.

Dacă ai între 18 – 25 de ani, completează în perioada 20 iulie – 2 august dosarul de candidatură care trebuie sa conțina:

• CV în format european,
• o scrisoare de recomandare de maximum 500 de cuvinte,
• o scrisoare de motivație
• un eseu de maximum 1500 de cuvinte prin care să ne arăţi perspectiva ta referitoare la temele propuse anul acesta: Youth Impact on Social Development: Education, Climate Change & Youth Participation.

Trimite-l la delegatdetineret@ctr.ro şi convinge-ne că tu meriţi să fii unul dintre cei selectaţi pentru etapele următoare. Pregăteşte-te apoi pentru un interviu telefonic şi pentru dezbaterea finală, în care vor fi aleși cei doi Delegaţi de Tineret ai României la Naţiunile Unite.

Fii gata să reprezinţi România!

Ni s-a parut o onoare inedita – eu personal aveam sansa sa ma intorc la niste preocupari de mult uitate, acelea de jurnalist/ povestitor – asa ca am acceptat. Pe mine ma intriga ideea de personalitate publica din spatele celui devenit Principele Radu, pe Vladimir destinul actorului devenit Principe. Am avut interviuri succesive cu Principele si alte persoane – am calatorit pana in Bulgaria, spre exemplu, pentru a-l intervieva pe Regele Simeon, am consultat diferite materiale, am ajuns sa il cunoastem pe actorul Radu, pe omul Radu, pe Principele Radu, si, spre surprinderea noastra, caci nu stiam de la bun inceput de aceste intentii, pe candidatul la Presedintie Radu.

Am facut cunostinta cu o personalitate interesanta si puternica, care vrea sa puna in scena o viziune. O personalitate pe care o admir, la fel cum de altfel admir si as dori sa cunosc mai indeaproape si alti politicieni, oameni de afaceri, si diplomati romani. Cartea nu se vrea a fi un manifest electoral – obiectiv vorbind, nici nu este, iar noi nu facem parte din staff-ul de campanie al Principelui (departe de mine, inca, gandul de a intra in politica). Este insa o felie de viata, povestita si interpretata, care poate va inspira cititorii, de pe orice pozitie s-ar afla, sa schimbe in bine comunitatile din care fac parte.

Prima lansare a cartii va avea loc azi, ora 12, la Diverta Magheru. Detalii despre ea si pe Internet, pe site-ul Editurii Litera.

In primul rand sunt Erste Foundation Prizes for Social Change, insotite de conferinta “The Future of Social Change. 1989-2009: Visions and Perspectives after 20 Years of Transition”. Activisti ONG, oameni de afaceri, antreprenori, jurnalisti si alti “change-makers” regionali se intalnesc timp de cateva zile in Bucuresti (24-26 iunie) si pun la cale viitorul socio-economic al regiunii noastre. Am fost ieri la conferinta de deschidere, ratand din pacate primul speech – al domnului Traian Basescu – caci m-ar fi interesat aici reactiile diferite ale publicului – ale romanilor versus ale celorlalti invitati straini. Insa am reusit sa urmaresc un panel cu un titlu provocator: “20 Years of Freedom: Who Is ‘In’ and Who is ‘Out’”? Mi-a placut mult felul in care a moderat discutia Boris Marte, Membru al Board-ului Fundatiei Erste (o institutie de-a dreptul impresionanta, de care din pacate auzisem prea putin pana acum), si mi-a placut mult interventia profesorului Claus Offe de la Hertie School of Governance, care a evidentiat ceea ce eu cred de mult – nevoia de a intari statul si de avea un stat puternic drept piatra de temelie pentru asigurarea tuturor celorlalte privilegii si libertati. O alta idee interesanta a fost cum am putea sa inlocuim dependenta sterila de partide politice prin foruri deliberative alternative. Cel mai mult mi-a placut insa raspunsul lui Offe la intrebarea referitoare la felul in care efectuam tranzitia morala si schimbam valori – anume amintind oamenilor des ceea ce ar trebui sa fie “in their face”: universalismul, responsabilitatea individuala, interdependenta sociala. A dat drept exemplu o masura miraculoasa a primarului orasului Bogota, care a impanzit un cartier cu o rata de criminalitate ridicata cu postere gigantice cu mesajul “La vida es sacrada”. Si a functionat. 

Apoi zilele acestea vin, pe partea de entertainment, Maratonul Future Shorts si Noaptea Institutelor Culturale. Le ratez pe amandoua, caci plec din Bucuresti, dar vi le recomand cu multa caldura.

Iar azi, din motive obiective, ratez Green Biz Forum, de care am aflat (cam prea tarziu, din pacate) de pe blog-ul lui Dragos Dehelean - discutii despre CSR verde si green business-uri, cu cateva din cele mai noi si promitatoare nume din domeniu. Sper sa citesc pe bloguri sau pe site-ul evenimentului cam despre ce a fost vorba.

Asadar, food for the brain and soul. Enjoy!