Last night I made sure to watch the Munk debate, which posed the question, “[Is] Climate Change Mankind’s Defining Crisis, and [does it] Demand a Commensurate Response.”

On the Pro side we had the Canadian Green Party Leader, Elizabeth May, and a weekly columnist for the Guardian and author, George Monbiot. While the Con side was represented by climate change expert and organizer of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, Bjorn Lomborg, and the founder and chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation and ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Nigel Lawson.

Each of these people is very important to this debate, as they each represent a specific group. Elizabeth May represents the extremist-climate change activist, George Monbiot the realist-climate change activist, Bjorn Lomborg the realist-effective change activist, and Lord Nigel Lawson the extremist-capitalism activist. It’s important to note that last fact, as many people don’t realize Lord Nigel is responsible for privatizing many British sectors and deregulating financial sectors during his tenure in office, as well, note that his Global Warming Policy Foundation is an organization which promotes skepticism on global warming.

The topic was not focused entirely on what to do about climate change, but whether it exists, if something should be done, and to what extent.

Each of their arguments can be summed up into a few words:

The debate was a heated one, with Elizabeth May getting very angry, and yelling at the opposition (which is something she’s known for in parliament), which led to her microphone being cut off by the mixers. Yet, her voice could still be heard in the bleed from the other microphones. She was promptly given a “time out”, along with Mr. Lomborg, until she calmed down enough to participate in the debate again.

Elizabeth May and Bjorn Lomborg resorted to insults and degradation of character to assist their perspectives, while the British representatives conducted themselves in a profession debate manner, rarely resorting to these practices. George Monbiot came off very respectable, with checked facts, and first-hand experience to share, along with a very polite demeanor in respect to the debate.

Going into the debate the audience of 1100 people was asked to cast their votes on the resolution, voting 61-39%. Post-debate results came out as 53-47%, declaring that although the con side had gained 8% on their side, the resolution still favoured the pro.

Most people think that this is mankind’s defining crisis, and believe that our effort should be focused on overcoming it, and its effects.

What are your thoughts?

[Watch debate here]

Popularity: 4% [?]

Technorati Tags: Climate Change, Debate, Education, Munk, World

Climate Change, Debate, Education, Munk, World Hide

Well today’s Friday, the day everyone seems to look forward to in the week.

Working for the weekend, to our time away from vocation, and spend some time doing what we really want.

Now, there are two problems here.

The first being: that there should be some joy in the work you do. Accomplishing something, and especially contributing to society all have their benefits for the ego. Its likely that this has been forgotten in the day-to-day shuffling of the business world, but try to remember why you got into it in the first place.

The second: the weekend just isn’t long enough.

I know the second point goes against what I just said, but there’s a reason for it:

We all need time away from work, and with all the stresses that burden us, we deserve more.

How about a four day work week?

There has been a push for this in recent reporting. The CBC wrote this article detailing how the shortened week inevitably saves the company money, due to lowered energy costs of shutting down the plant on the extra day.

The state of Utah did a yearlong experiment with the four day work week. They have found amazing success, with saving costs for the company and gas for their employees, such as in the CBC article, but also found 82% of the workers preferred the new schedule.

While these two examples involve a longer work day, but shortened work week, the salaries stay the same [at 40 hours a week for standard full time, 4 days a week, 10 hour days].

This keeps you at work longer during the day, but you get the work week done much quicker, with a larger pay-off as well.

My belief is that this will lower stress, increase employee morale [which it has shown in examples], and will also spark the economy, with an extra day for people to go out and spend money on their free time.

Families could possibly improve, with a whole extra day for family time, and making it easy to plan trips without taking time off.

It’s shown to work, and its preferred by employees, while saving employers money, why hasn’t this been done sooner?

For more read this post at Bullion Bulls Canada.

Popularity: 100% [?]

Technorati Tags: Business, Happiness, information, Life, Money, Society, Success

Business, Happiness, information, Life, Money, Society, Success Hide