Tuesday, 30 June 2009
Greens won't cheer when Swedes take over EU presidency from the Czechs
Stockholm is accused of lacking ambition ahead of Copenhagen, despite its good record on renewables and reducing emissions http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/jun/30/eu-presidency-climate-change-sweden
Art meets nature in Norway
An ambitious series of stunning architectural designs is turning the spotlight on Norway's natural beauty. http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2009/jun/29/norway-architecture-art-road-trips
Wednesday, 3 June 2009
Sex ban puts prostitutes at greater risk
As Britain is making it an offence to buy sex from women forced into prostitution, I have been talking to sex workers, police and support groups in Norway, Sweden and Finland, where similar bans have met with a mixed reception. The full article was published in the Guardian and can be read in full here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/may/27/prostitution-norway
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/may/27/prostitution-norway
Saturday, 7 February 2009
Getting a reaction
Much to the shock of many Swedes, the country has just overturned a ban on new atomic plants. As Terry Macalister reports, the government has decided to give the green light to a new generation of nuclear reactors to replace its ten existing plants.
Sweden was at the forefront of anti-nuclear sentiment in the 1970s and 1980s, when the subject was one of the top political issues of the day. It split political parties. It tore families apart around the dinner table. It educated an entire generation of green-minded Swedes, who discovered the environment needed protection. Especially important was the 1979 nuclear accident at Three Mile Island, which convinced many Swedes that nuclear power was not safe. Then, of course, there was Chernobyl in 1986.
The nuclear question was so heated that in 1980, the then prime minister, Olof Palme, decided to submit it to a referendum. The verdict: phase out the country's plants by 2010. Which Sweden partly did: in 1998 and 2001, it closed down two reactors at its Bärseback plant.
But it proved difficult to phase out the remaining ten plants. In 1997, government officials acknowledged there weren't enough alternative sources of energy to do it by 2010. So they decided to delay the target for about three decades by not replacing the existing reactors. Even today, about half of the country's electricity comes from nuclear power, with the rest produced from its hydroelectric dams. Yesterday's announcement could be the death knell of the 1980 referendum.
Or maybe not – since the issue is now firmly on the political agenda for the 2010 general election. The opposition Green and Left parties are firmly against atomic energy, while the main opposition party, the Social Democrats, is deeply divided on the issue. And even though the leadership of the four ruling centre-right parties are now united in their support of nuclear power, there are rumblings within the ranks of two of the four groups, the Centre party and the Christian Democrats, which oppose the announcement.
This has led some analysts to privately suggest that yesterday's move was primarily a political ploy to undermine the opposition, rather than a move to secure Sweden's energy supply. Since Fredrik Reinfeldt's government is trailing the opposition parties in the polls, what better way to undermine them than to throw an issue in the ring that can deeply divide them? It's the Swedish equivalent of Gordon Brown announcing that Britain will join the euro to tear apart the Conservatives.
Sweden is also closely following what's going on next door in Finland, where the first nuclear reactor in western Europe in 15 years is being built. Its backers would like Olkiluoto 3 to be the shining new example of the a generation of nuclear reactors, but so far it's a nightmare, suffering endless delays and doubling budget costs.
And even though most Swedes today favour the use of nuclear power, just two years ago they were debating whether it was safe after a fault at the Forsmark plant, 100 miles north of Stockholm. According to one of the chief engineers who helped built the plant in the 1980s, it was "one of the most serious incidents that could have happened, short of an accident like Chernobyl or Three Mile Island". Half of Sweden's nuclear park had to be shut down following the incident and Swedes were left wondering whether they were too dependent on nuclear energy. Far from putting an end to the nuclear debate in Sweden, yesterday's announcement could be just the beginning.
Sweden was at the forefront of anti-nuclear sentiment in the 1970s and 1980s, when the subject was one of the top political issues of the day. It split political parties. It tore families apart around the dinner table. It educated an entire generation of green-minded Swedes, who discovered the environment needed protection. Especially important was the 1979 nuclear accident at Three Mile Island, which convinced many Swedes that nuclear power was not safe. Then, of course, there was Chernobyl in 1986.
The nuclear question was so heated that in 1980, the then prime minister, Olof Palme, decided to submit it to a referendum. The verdict: phase out the country's plants by 2010. Which Sweden partly did: in 1998 and 2001, it closed down two reactors at its Bärseback plant.
But it proved difficult to phase out the remaining ten plants. In 1997, government officials acknowledged there weren't enough alternative sources of energy to do it by 2010. So they decided to delay the target for about three decades by not replacing the existing reactors. Even today, about half of the country's electricity comes from nuclear power, with the rest produced from its hydroelectric dams. Yesterday's announcement could be the death knell of the 1980 referendum.
Or maybe not – since the issue is now firmly on the political agenda for the 2010 general election. The opposition Green and Left parties are firmly against atomic energy, while the main opposition party, the Social Democrats, is deeply divided on the issue. And even though the leadership of the four ruling centre-right parties are now united in their support of nuclear power, there are rumblings within the ranks of two of the four groups, the Centre party and the Christian Democrats, which oppose the announcement.
This has led some analysts to privately suggest that yesterday's move was primarily a political ploy to undermine the opposition, rather than a move to secure Sweden's energy supply. Since Fredrik Reinfeldt's government is trailing the opposition parties in the polls, what better way to undermine them than to throw an issue in the ring that can deeply divide them? It's the Swedish equivalent of Gordon Brown announcing that Britain will join the euro to tear apart the Conservatives.
Sweden is also closely following what's going on next door in Finland, where the first nuclear reactor in western Europe in 15 years is being built. Its backers would like Olkiluoto 3 to be the shining new example of the a generation of nuclear reactors, but so far it's a nightmare, suffering endless delays and doubling budget costs.
And even though most Swedes today favour the use of nuclear power, just two years ago they were debating whether it was safe after a fault at the Forsmark plant, 100 miles north of Stockholm. According to one of the chief engineers who helped built the plant in the 1980s, it was "one of the most serious incidents that could have happened, short of an accident like Chernobyl or Three Mile Island". Half of Sweden's nuclear park had to be shut down following the incident and Swedes were left wondering whether they were too dependent on nuclear energy. Far from putting an end to the nuclear debate in Sweden, yesterday's announcement could be just the beginning.
Monday, 2 February 2009
A Viking union?
While Iceland is debating whether applying for EU membership is really the best option to rescue its crisis-hit economy, there is another option on the table growing in popularity: monetary union with Norway.
None other than Iceland's new finance minister, Steingúrmur Sigfússon, is considering the idea of using the Norwegian crown as the country's currency – a move that would have been unthinkable only a few months ago.
Asked by the Norwegian daily Klassekampen on Friday whether this was a serious option, Sigfússon answered: "We hope so. It will be natural to talk about it when we celebrate our party's 10-year anniversary [this week]. Nordic socialist party leaders are invited and I hope of course that Kristin [Halvorsen, the Norwegian finance minister] will come."
Sigfússon is the leader of the Left-Greens, the most popular political party in Iceland today, while Halvorsen leads the Socialist Left party in Norway, the sister-party of Sigfússon's.
"A strong and deceptive belief in adopting the euro has emerged [in Iceland] even though Iceland is just as far away from complying with euro criteria as poor countries in eastern Europe," continued Sigfússon, whose party is strongly opposed to EU membership. "So we think that the possibilities of currency co-operation with the Nordic countries, preferably Norway, must be thoroughly investigated."
And Norway is not saying "nei" either. "I look forward to discussing various aspects of the economic situation in Iceland with finance minister Steingrimur Sigfússon," Halvorsen told Reuters today, "also currency co-operation if that becomes a subject."
The idea of a monetary union between Iceland and Norway is not as crazy as it sounds, as the two nations have been co-operating for years. Since 2006, when US forces pulled out of Keflavik base, Iceland's national defence has been provided by Norway, as Iceland does not have armed forces of its own.
Norwegians have also been quick to ride to the rescue of their Icelandic cousins during the economic crisis. In May the Norwegian central bank said it would lend Iceland €1.5bn to prop up its economy, together with the central banks of Sweden and Denmark.
And in November, Norway again gave a lending hand to Iceland with €500m in aid as part of an IMF-led $10bn package.
The two states are culturally close, with Iceland originally populated by Vikings who left Norway more than 1,000 years ago. They also have shared strategic interests, such as control of their fisheries, which they are loth to surrender. Both have interests in the strategic Arctic region.
But not everyone is thrilled at the prospect of an Icelandic-Norwegian union, with Oslo-based economists warning that it is unrealistic. Oystein Doerum, chief economist at Norway's largest bank DnB NOR, told Reuters that the idea sounded "absurd" and would most likely be opposed by Norway's prime minister, Jens Stoltenberg, and Norway's central bank.
And as Eirikur Bergmann suggests, the lure of the euro could be such that the only viable option for Iceland really is to join the EU. So it remains to be seen whether there will be a new Viking union in Europe.
None other than Iceland's new finance minister, Steingúrmur Sigfússon, is considering the idea of using the Norwegian crown as the country's currency – a move that would have been unthinkable only a few months ago.
Asked by the Norwegian daily Klassekampen on Friday whether this was a serious option, Sigfússon answered: "We hope so. It will be natural to talk about it when we celebrate our party's 10-year anniversary [this week]. Nordic socialist party leaders are invited and I hope of course that Kristin [Halvorsen, the Norwegian finance minister] will come."
Sigfússon is the leader of the Left-Greens, the most popular political party in Iceland today, while Halvorsen leads the Socialist Left party in Norway, the sister-party of Sigfússon's.
"A strong and deceptive belief in adopting the euro has emerged [in Iceland] even though Iceland is just as far away from complying with euro criteria as poor countries in eastern Europe," continued Sigfússon, whose party is strongly opposed to EU membership. "So we think that the possibilities of currency co-operation with the Nordic countries, preferably Norway, must be thoroughly investigated."
And Norway is not saying "nei" either. "I look forward to discussing various aspects of the economic situation in Iceland with finance minister Steingrimur Sigfússon," Halvorsen told Reuters today, "also currency co-operation if that becomes a subject."
The idea of a monetary union between Iceland and Norway is not as crazy as it sounds, as the two nations have been co-operating for years. Since 2006, when US forces pulled out of Keflavik base, Iceland's national defence has been provided by Norway, as Iceland does not have armed forces of its own.
Norwegians have also been quick to ride to the rescue of their Icelandic cousins during the economic crisis. In May the Norwegian central bank said it would lend Iceland €1.5bn to prop up its economy, together with the central banks of Sweden and Denmark.
And in November, Norway again gave a lending hand to Iceland with €500m in aid as part of an IMF-led $10bn package.
The two states are culturally close, with Iceland originally populated by Vikings who left Norway more than 1,000 years ago. They also have shared strategic interests, such as control of their fisheries, which they are loth to surrender. Both have interests in the strategic Arctic region.
But not everyone is thrilled at the prospect of an Icelandic-Norwegian union, with Oslo-based economists warning that it is unrealistic. Oystein Doerum, chief economist at Norway's largest bank DnB NOR, told Reuters that the idea sounded "absurd" and would most likely be opposed by Norway's prime minister, Jens Stoltenberg, and Norway's central bank.
And as Eirikur Bergmann suggests, the lure of the euro could be such that the only viable option for Iceland really is to join the EU. So it remains to be seen whether there will be a new Viking union in Europe.
Wednesday, 16 July 2008
Island home of Ingmar Bergman 'could be sold to highest bidder'
It's the windswept sanctuary where one of the world's greatest directors got the inspiration for his movies, a spot so intricately associated with the introspective mood of his work that it attracts legions of film fans every year. But now, the home of Ingmar Bergman, on the Baltic Sea island of Fårö, is under threat.
The house and its contents are expected to be auctioned off by Christie's next year unless sponsors can be found to fund a cultural centre that would preserve the home as it is. "The nightmare scenario is that the house is sold off and everything inside goes with it," explains Jannike Åhlund, one of the organisers of a project to turn Bergman's house into a home for artists.
Like Woody Allen, who is closely associated with Manhattan, Bergman is inextricably linked with Fårö, an outcrop situated about 87 miles off Sweden's south-east coast. The island's barren landscape has featured in at least seven of his movies, including Through a Glass Darkly, Scenes from a Marriage and Persona, contributing to their existentialist mood.
You can read more here:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/bergman/story/0,,2290464,00.html
The house and its contents are expected to be auctioned off by Christie's next year unless sponsors can be found to fund a cultural centre that would preserve the home as it is. "The nightmare scenario is that the house is sold off and everything inside goes with it," explains Jannike Åhlund, one of the organisers of a project to turn Bergman's house into a home for artists.
Like Woody Allen, who is closely associated with Manhattan, Bergman is inextricably linked with Fårö, an outcrop situated about 87 miles off Sweden's south-east coast. The island's barren landscape has featured in at least seven of his movies, including Through a Glass Darkly, Scenes from a Marriage and Persona, contributing to their existentialist mood.
You can read more here:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/bergman/story/0,,2290464,00.html
Monday, 12 May 2008
Directorial debuts
Since the beginning of the year, the boards of Norwegian public limited companies have had to be 40% female. If they don't comply, the state will shut them down. Sound like a crazy idea? Well, it has worked. Norwegian company boards now have the highest number of female directors anywhere in the world. Perhaps Britain should consider introducing a similar initiative.
The law was the brainchild of an unlikely feminist icon. Former businessman Ansgar Gabrielsen, 52, was a Conservative trade and industry minister when he announced the law in 2002. "I could not see why, after 25 years of having an equal ratio of women and men in universities and having so many educated women with experience, there were so few of them on boards," he told me.
"The law was not about getting equality between the sexes; it was about the fact that diversity is a value in itself, that it creates wealth. From my time in the business world, I saw how board members were picked: they come from the same small circle of people. They go hunting and fishing together, they are buddies."
Today many directors I've spoken to say boards have become more competent. Board recruiters have been forced to look beyond their immediate circles of friends and colleagues. The pool of candidates has widened, so you have more chances of getting good directors. And since you have people with more diverse backgrounds, you have a multiplicity of opinions and approaches at board meetings, which leads to better decision-making.
The law has focused people's minds on diversity. Instead of endless talking-shops about breaking the glass ceiling, people have had to think practically about how to have more women in top executive positions.
It has given rise to other initiatives too. The confederation of Norwegian enterprise (NHO) which had started a programme called female future, to put female board candidates in touch with company owners, has now launched another initiative, called ethnic future. The aim is to promote more men and women from ethnic minorities to executive positions. Many women who took part in female future were also offered top management positions, not just directorships. Company owners saw their CV in the programme's database, thought they would be good for their companies, and offered them jobs.
In the UK, only 11% of directors of FTSE 100 firms were female in 2007. How long do we have to wait until the generations of experienced women that have been working in business for decades get to these positions? The debate often focuses on what women should do more to get the seats: they should get more experience; they should spend more time at work; they should cultivate more networks.
Aside from the fact that that women are already doing that, this argument is focusing on the wrong group of people. The debate should be about board recruiters. Why do they pick only men? Change doesn't happen naturally. It always needs to be provoked with bold initiatives. They are always decried at the beginning, and then they are taken for granted.
Gabrielsen did exactly that. He announced the quota law without consulting his party leader or the prime minister. His party, the Conservatives, at first protested but then fell into line. The leftwing parties had not other choice but to follow suit. Meanwhile, the business community, which at first was up in arms, eventually took the pragmatic approach and complied with the law. None of the directors I spoke to thought quotas are a good idea per se. However, they thought they were necessary to bring about change. Perhaps it's time Britain does the same.
The law was the brainchild of an unlikely feminist icon. Former businessman Ansgar Gabrielsen, 52, was a Conservative trade and industry minister when he announced the law in 2002. "I could not see why, after 25 years of having an equal ratio of women and men in universities and having so many educated women with experience, there were so few of them on boards," he told me.
"The law was not about getting equality between the sexes; it was about the fact that diversity is a value in itself, that it creates wealth. From my time in the business world, I saw how board members were picked: they come from the same small circle of people. They go hunting and fishing together, they are buddies."
Today many directors I've spoken to say boards have become more competent. Board recruiters have been forced to look beyond their immediate circles of friends and colleagues. The pool of candidates has widened, so you have more chances of getting good directors. And since you have people with more diverse backgrounds, you have a multiplicity of opinions and approaches at board meetings, which leads to better decision-making.
The law has focused people's minds on diversity. Instead of endless talking-shops about breaking the glass ceiling, people have had to think practically about how to have more women in top executive positions.
It has given rise to other initiatives too. The confederation of Norwegian enterprise (NHO) which had started a programme called female future, to put female board candidates in touch with company owners, has now launched another initiative, called ethnic future. The aim is to promote more men and women from ethnic minorities to executive positions. Many women who took part in female future were also offered top management positions, not just directorships. Company owners saw their CV in the programme's database, thought they would be good for their companies, and offered them jobs.
In the UK, only 11% of directors of FTSE 100 firms were female in 2007. How long do we have to wait until the generations of experienced women that have been working in business for decades get to these positions? The debate often focuses on what women should do more to get the seats: they should get more experience; they should spend more time at work; they should cultivate more networks.
Aside from the fact that that women are already doing that, this argument is focusing on the wrong group of people. The debate should be about board recruiters. Why do they pick only men? Change doesn't happen naturally. It always needs to be provoked with bold initiatives. They are always decried at the beginning, and then they are taken for granted.
Gabrielsen did exactly that. He announced the quota law without consulting his party leader or the prime minister. His party, the Conservatives, at first protested but then fell into line. The leftwing parties had not other choice but to follow suit. Meanwhile, the business community, which at first was up in arms, eventually took the pragmatic approach and complied with the law. None of the directors I spoke to thought quotas are a good idea per se. However, they thought they were necessary to bring about change. Perhaps it's time Britain does the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
