It's a Saturday night in mid-November, and I'm at home lamenting the lack of Scandinavian crime dramas on my telly. To salve my longing for miserable, unsmiling characters, washed out hues and Volvos, the disco has taken a down tempo step this evening with the theme from The Bridge by Choir of Young Believers. Yet this is with something else. This is not Hollow Talk vanilla-stylee. The production below is remixed by Jody Wisternoff, James Grant, and Lane 8. Does it improve on the original? Of course it does.
Showing posts with label Scandinavia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scandinavia. Show all posts
Saturday, 15 November 2014
Monday, 26 January 2009
Iceland Heats Up
This report comes from Per-Åke Westerlund of Rättvisepartiet Socialisterna, the Swedish section of the CWI (at present the CWI does not have an Icelandic affiliate). The BBC and Channel Four reporting of what is happening is nothing short of shameful. You'd be forgiven for thinking that the ruling Independence Party/Social Democrat coalition resigned simply because they felt guilt over their reckless economic policies. In fact, what Per-Åke reports on is a crisis not seen in Western Europe since the late 1960s. With the media chattering this last weekend about 'Reykjavik-on-Thames', could it happen here?
Iceland: Devastated by Global Crisis
A few days of demonstrations, including protesters throwing eggs being met by riot police with teargas, have been enough to force a new election in Iceland. The mass protests in what is, to date, the worst hit country in the global economic crisis, have been referred to as a revolution – a ’fleece’, ’facebook’, or ’saucepan’ revolution. Among those who have come onto the streets, there are discussions about the need for a new political force.
On Monday 26 January, the government handed in its resignation. This was clearly an attempt to defuse the protest movement. So was the proposal from resigning PM Geir Haarde of a "national unity government".
It is only three months ago, in early October, that Iceland went from being the fifth richest country in the world – based on GDP per capita – to experiencing the worst crisis of all countries, so far. The super-indebted Icelandic banks were nationalised in an attempt to limit the crisis. Today, 70 per cent of all companies and 40 per cent of households are technically bankrupt. GDP is expected to drop 10 per cent this year. Unemployment increased from six to nine per cent in December alone, inflation is close to 20 per cent, while interest rates are 18 per cent. The currency, the Icelandic krona, is hardly exchangeable.
Demonstrations of anger bring down government
There is a widespread hatred against the bankers who orchestrated the crisis and their friends, the politicians. While the top bankers seem to have left the country, however, the politicians remained in power. This changed last week.
From Tuesday, 20 January, when parliament restarted after the holidays, daily protests were organised. The main slogan was "incompetent government" and the demand was for new elections. Most people brought cooking pans and other improvised objects to drum on.
Last Wednesday, the protest took place outside a meeting held by the Social Democratic Alliance, a junior partner in the coalition government, demanding that the SDA resign. Later the same night, protesters surrounded the limousine of Prime Minister Geir Haarde, knocking on the car roof and throwing eggs and drink cans. Riot police were used to defend Haarde, who is also leader of the Independence Party. At that stage, he still ruled out any elections before those scheduled for two years’ time in 2011.
In protests late at night on Thursday, stones were thrown at the police, with two policemen injured. The police used teargas and pepper spray and 20 people were arrested in the first major attack on a demonstration since 1949, when Icelanders demonstrated against NATO membership. It has been reported that the government of Iceland, which has only a handful of soldiers, was considering calling in Norwegian forces.
The Icelandic website, Ice News, quoted one of the protesters:
"No one has resigned and no one has been fired. They are hard at work at getting what little is left here back into the hands of those who crashed our economy to begin with.
”The people here are afraid and at the mercy of ruthless criminals that have feathered their nests not only in our government, but also in the businesses and banks. These banks were given to them through a fake privatisation in 2005, they have literally done nothing but spend money since; now it´s all gone, and you want to give them more?".
The protester referred to the demand of the demonstrators that money promised from the IMF and governments should not be paid out to the present government. In total, ten billion US dollars has been promised in "rescue packages". The IMF deal includes severe demands for budget cuts and high interest rates, both measures that will deepen the crisis.
New elections
On Friday, Prime Minister Haarde suddenly declared new elections for 9 May. At the same press conference, he announced his resignation as leader of the Independence Party, revealing that he has cancer. Already, the leader of the Social Democratic Party, Foreign Minister Ingibjorg Solrun Gisladottir, is being treated for cancer. The following day, Minister of Commerce, Bjorgvin Sigurdsson, resigned at the same time as he sacked the boss of the state authority responsible for financial supervision.
These announcements, however, did not break the momentum of the protests. On Saturday, over 6,000 people gathered, demanding the government resign immediately.
"We will not allow more crap. The government must go. We've had enough of them controlling everything, just taking care of themselves and not caring at all for the people", said one of the speakers, Jakobina Olafsdóttir, to great cheers from the crowd. The Swedish daily, Dagens Nyheter, continued its report: "She and others in Iceland want to see a new society, without the cronyism and corruption they believe is prevalent and without the for so long so mighty Independence Party."
The same article continues: "Different protest movements have mushroomed. With the help of Facebook". [Ninety six per cent of 20-29 year-olds are on Facebook.] "They quickly gather thousands of supporters and can easily call meetings. Now, there are discussions between the different movements to form a common manifesto for a new society."
In opinion polls the opposition Left-Green Movement has doubled since the last election two years ago, to 32.6 per cent. The two governing parties have lost a combined 22 per cent. The Independence Party’s ratings have fallen to 22.1 per cent and the Social Democratic Alliance to 19.2 per cent. A previous partner of the Independence Party, the Progressive Party, has also increased in opposition, from 11.7 to 16.8 per cent.
This is a clear indication that people are looking for a more radical alternative. The Left-Greens are seen as the most anti-capitalist party, previously profiling themselves mostly on environmental issues. For example, the party advocates nationalisation of all natural resources. The Left-Greens also stand for re-negotiations on the IMF deal and for Iceland to leave NATO. Opinion in favour of joining the European Union, which surged when the currency collapsed last year, has already started to dwindle. Today, 38 per cent want to join, compared to over 50 per cent in October. Many have understood that foreign aid will not come without strings.
Revolution?
The mass demonstrations in Iceland, like recent protests in other European countries, show the willingness of people to try and take control over their own lives. They no longer trust politicians or capitalists. At the demonstrations in Reykjavik, the boss of the Central Bank, David Oddsson, a previous prime minister, has been compared to Adolf Hitler!
It is clear that the protesters have had enough and that they are representative of the generally-held feelings in Iceland. This has given rise to a lot of discussion about whether what is happening is a revolution.
“The word ‘revolution’ might sound a bit of an overstatement, but given the calm temperament that usually prevails in Icelandic politics, the unfolding events represent, at the very least, a revolution in political activism", Icelander Eirkur Bergmann wrote in the British paper, The Guardian.
Another recent visitor to Iceland, London School of Economics professor Robert Wade, commented, "The situation is very tense and very unstable". He compared the situation with other sometimes-violent street demonstrations in Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Greece over the last month.
A third commentator, Fredrik Erixon of the Brussels-based European Centre for International Political Economy, said the situation was reminiscent of "the French Revolution of 1789", rather than that of 1968. The anger is certainly there, but capitalist Iceland is far different from feudal France.
The lesson from mass movements in other countries in recent years is that unpopular regimes can be overthrown. But to alter the economic and political conditions in society the working class and its allies need their own party with a programme for socialist change.
In Iceland there will be a concerted campaign from national and global capital to submit to the IMF conditions, including economic blackmail. Any government that is not prepared to challenge the capitalists who have caused the crisis will come under enormous pressure to make huge cuts in living standards for working people. This is the case even if a Left-Green government is established, or a government of "experts", as some of the protesters have proposed.
Workers and youth in Iceland have already drawn important conclusions. New experiences will force them to look hard for alternatives. Transforming the situation in Iceland would need a fully socialist programme of nationalisation of all major parts of the economy, under democratic workers’ control and management. The crisis has shown that bankers, capitalists and today's top politicians are not wanted; democratically elected organisations of workers, youth, pensioners could run society without them. The beginnings of a movement against capitalism in Iceland must be welcomed and encouraged by workers and activists internationally. This is just the first indication of what is to come as more and more countries fall into recession and mass revolt begins to develop.
Flickr images from the protests can be viewed here.
Iceland: Devastated by Global Crisis
A few days of demonstrations, including protesters throwing eggs being met by riot police with teargas, have been enough to force a new election in Iceland. The mass protests in what is, to date, the worst hit country in the global economic crisis, have been referred to as a revolution – a ’fleece’, ’facebook’, or ’saucepan’ revolution. Among those who have come onto the streets, there are discussions about the need for a new political force.
On Monday 26 January, the government handed in its resignation. This was clearly an attempt to defuse the protest movement. So was the proposal from resigning PM Geir Haarde of a "national unity government".
It is only three months ago, in early October, that Iceland went from being the fifth richest country in the world – based on GDP per capita – to experiencing the worst crisis of all countries, so far. The super-indebted Icelandic banks were nationalised in an attempt to limit the crisis. Today, 70 per cent of all companies and 40 per cent of households are technically bankrupt. GDP is expected to drop 10 per cent this year. Unemployment increased from six to nine per cent in December alone, inflation is close to 20 per cent, while interest rates are 18 per cent. The currency, the Icelandic krona, is hardly exchangeable.
Demonstrations of anger bring down government
There is a widespread hatred against the bankers who orchestrated the crisis and their friends, the politicians. While the top bankers seem to have left the country, however, the politicians remained in power. This changed last week.
From Tuesday, 20 January, when parliament restarted after the holidays, daily protests were organised. The main slogan was "incompetent government" and the demand was for new elections. Most people brought cooking pans and other improvised objects to drum on.
Last Wednesday, the protest took place outside a meeting held by the Social Democratic Alliance, a junior partner in the coalition government, demanding that the SDA resign. Later the same night, protesters surrounded the limousine of Prime Minister Geir Haarde, knocking on the car roof and throwing eggs and drink cans. Riot police were used to defend Haarde, who is also leader of the Independence Party. At that stage, he still ruled out any elections before those scheduled for two years’ time in 2011.
In protests late at night on Thursday, stones were thrown at the police, with two policemen injured. The police used teargas and pepper spray and 20 people were arrested in the first major attack on a demonstration since 1949, when Icelanders demonstrated against NATO membership. It has been reported that the government of Iceland, which has only a handful of soldiers, was considering calling in Norwegian forces.
The Icelandic website, Ice News, quoted one of the protesters:
"No one has resigned and no one has been fired. They are hard at work at getting what little is left here back into the hands of those who crashed our economy to begin with.
”The people here are afraid and at the mercy of ruthless criminals that have feathered their nests not only in our government, but also in the businesses and banks. These banks were given to them through a fake privatisation in 2005, they have literally done nothing but spend money since; now it´s all gone, and you want to give them more?".
The protester referred to the demand of the demonstrators that money promised from the IMF and governments should not be paid out to the present government. In total, ten billion US dollars has been promised in "rescue packages". The IMF deal includes severe demands for budget cuts and high interest rates, both measures that will deepen the crisis.
New elections
On Friday, Prime Minister Haarde suddenly declared new elections for 9 May. At the same press conference, he announced his resignation as leader of the Independence Party, revealing that he has cancer. Already, the leader of the Social Democratic Party, Foreign Minister Ingibjorg Solrun Gisladottir, is being treated for cancer. The following day, Minister of Commerce, Bjorgvin Sigurdsson, resigned at the same time as he sacked the boss of the state authority responsible for financial supervision.
These announcements, however, did not break the momentum of the protests. On Saturday, over 6,000 people gathered, demanding the government resign immediately.
"We will not allow more crap. The government must go. We've had enough of them controlling everything, just taking care of themselves and not caring at all for the people", said one of the speakers, Jakobina Olafsdóttir, to great cheers from the crowd. The Swedish daily, Dagens Nyheter, continued its report: "She and others in Iceland want to see a new society, without the cronyism and corruption they believe is prevalent and without the for so long so mighty Independence Party."
The same article continues: "Different protest movements have mushroomed. With the help of Facebook". [Ninety six per cent of 20-29 year-olds are on Facebook.] "They quickly gather thousands of supporters and can easily call meetings. Now, there are discussions between the different movements to form a common manifesto for a new society."
In opinion polls the opposition Left-Green Movement has doubled since the last election two years ago, to 32.6 per cent. The two governing parties have lost a combined 22 per cent. The Independence Party’s ratings have fallen to 22.1 per cent and the Social Democratic Alliance to 19.2 per cent. A previous partner of the Independence Party, the Progressive Party, has also increased in opposition, from 11.7 to 16.8 per cent.
This is a clear indication that people are looking for a more radical alternative. The Left-Greens are seen as the most anti-capitalist party, previously profiling themselves mostly on environmental issues. For example, the party advocates nationalisation of all natural resources. The Left-Greens also stand for re-negotiations on the IMF deal and for Iceland to leave NATO. Opinion in favour of joining the European Union, which surged when the currency collapsed last year, has already started to dwindle. Today, 38 per cent want to join, compared to over 50 per cent in October. Many have understood that foreign aid will not come without strings.
Revolution?
The mass demonstrations in Iceland, like recent protests in other European countries, show the willingness of people to try and take control over their own lives. They no longer trust politicians or capitalists. At the demonstrations in Reykjavik, the boss of the Central Bank, David Oddsson, a previous prime minister, has been compared to Adolf Hitler!
It is clear that the protesters have had enough and that they are representative of the generally-held feelings in Iceland. This has given rise to a lot of discussion about whether what is happening is a revolution.
“The word ‘revolution’ might sound a bit of an overstatement, but given the calm temperament that usually prevails in Icelandic politics, the unfolding events represent, at the very least, a revolution in political activism", Icelander Eirkur Bergmann wrote in the British paper, The Guardian.
Another recent visitor to Iceland, London School of Economics professor Robert Wade, commented, "The situation is very tense and very unstable". He compared the situation with other sometimes-violent street demonstrations in Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Greece over the last month.
A third commentator, Fredrik Erixon of the Brussels-based European Centre for International Political Economy, said the situation was reminiscent of "the French Revolution of 1789", rather than that of 1968. The anger is certainly there, but capitalist Iceland is far different from feudal France.
The lesson from mass movements in other countries in recent years is that unpopular regimes can be overthrown. But to alter the economic and political conditions in society the working class and its allies need their own party with a programme for socialist change.
In Iceland there will be a concerted campaign from national and global capital to submit to the IMF conditions, including economic blackmail. Any government that is not prepared to challenge the capitalists who have caused the crisis will come under enormous pressure to make huge cuts in living standards for working people. This is the case even if a Left-Green government is established, or a government of "experts", as some of the protesters have proposed.
Workers and youth in Iceland have already drawn important conclusions. New experiences will force them to look hard for alternatives. Transforming the situation in Iceland would need a fully socialist programme of nationalisation of all major parts of the economy, under democratic workers’ control and management. The crisis has shown that bankers, capitalists and today's top politicians are not wanted; democratically elected organisations of workers, youth, pensioners could run society without them. The beginnings of a movement against capitalism in Iceland must be welcomed and encouraged by workers and activists internationally. This is just the first indication of what is to come as more and more countries fall into recession and mass revolt begins to develop.
Flickr images from the protests can be viewed here.
Sunday, 18 May 2008
It's Eurovision Week!
Once a year a small group of socialists forget their internationalism and spurn the bonds that tie our class together across national borders. They hold aloft their country's flag and make like it's 1914 all over again. For one night the most ugly nationalist bile spews forth from their mouths as they huddle in front of their TV sets. Only one occasion can turn the most principled of comrades into unabashed chauvinists, and that event would be the Eurovision Song Contest.
That's right. Eurovision is taking place this weekend and the BC household cannot wait! The UK entry, Andy Abrahams' Even If may well be forgettable tosh, but it's our tosh, and he deserves douze pois all round just because he's the UK entry.
You'll find the usual tacky rubbish among the rest of the entries. But there are a couple whose chances I fancy.
Behold, Gisela's Casanova:
She represents the mighty Andorra and has, as far as I'm concerned, the least worst song in the competition ... except for these guys, Iceland's Euroband:
Brilliant vid and utterly camp, it has got to be the most perfect thing Eurovision has seen in years. East European voting blocs withstanding, surely it will win?
That's right. Eurovision is taking place this weekend and the BC household cannot wait! The UK entry, Andy Abrahams' Even If may well be forgettable tosh, but it's our tosh, and he deserves douze pois all round just because he's the UK entry.
You'll find the usual tacky rubbish among the rest of the entries. But there are a couple whose chances I fancy.
Behold, Gisela's Casanova:
She represents the mighty Andorra and has, as far as I'm concerned, the least worst song in the competition ... except for these guys, Iceland's Euroband:
Brilliant vid and utterly camp, it has got to be the most perfect thing Eurovision has seen in years. East European voting blocs withstanding, surely it will win?
Tuesday, 27 November 2007
In the Tracks of the Ecological Citizen
Another day, another Keele seminar. The latest I attended was a presentation by two Swedish researchers, Sverker Jagers and Johan Martinsson. Theirs was very much a declaration of intent rather than a presentation of findings (though it did involve this). Their ambitious aim is to put empirical flesh on the abstract bones of an increasingly important concept in green political thought: the ecological citizen.
What is an ecological citizen? This concept has come out of the work of the well-known green theorist and Keele-resident, Andy Dobson. At the risk of doing some violence to his work, his idea of the ecological citizen is someone who is motivated by green values and a concern for social justice. This can be manifested in many ways through political practice and/or personal behaviour. Jagers and Martinsson have taken upon themselves is to try and operationalise this concept to see if the concept has any analytical purchase.
Jagers began by describing his previous work. His completed PhD thesis was on liberal democracies and sustainable development, where he argued for their potential to adopt comprehensive environmental policies, but enacting them is dependent on institutional development, political will and public support. His second major piece of research looked at the popularity or otherwise of green policy instruments. Unsurprisingly, punitive tools such as Sweden's carbon tax were not popular whereas measures such as subsidised green fuels or an expansion of public transport were more preferable. However, Jagers pointed out that of the sum total of Sweden's taxes, the carbon tax was more popular than other forms of taxation. But if taxation in general is unpopular, then the funding of a greener transport policy is called into question.
This is the context in which Jagers and Martinsson want to go hunting for (Swedish) ecological citizens. They intend to produce a battery of questions for web-based surveys with the aim of identifying this constituency, and start to build an understanding of how their values affect their behaviour. Common ideology, lifestyle, socio-economic status, and education will all be looked at to determine what the key factors are that help explain why some people become ecological citizens. The survey design will also measure levels of altruism, awareness of the consequences of one's behaviour, willingness to adjust behaviour, and openness to environmentally-friendly policy instruments.
Martinsson then moved on to consider research on Swedish environmental attitudes and their relationship to media coverage. The first study he cited indicated a strong relationship. Since 1988, the number of Swedes who perceived the environment as a vitally important political issue has declined from around the 40% mark to approximately 10% ten years later. Here it bumps around this percentage for six years, until 2003-2006, when it jumps from 6% to 13%. It's also worth noting that 1988 was a peak figure, growing from a very low base in 1979. If you compare the recent growth with media coverage of environmental issues, the number of newspaper and magazine articles jumped between February 2005 and January of this year. But is there really a correlation?
A very recent piece of research they've done on the shaping of green opinion by media coverage suggests a very weak relation. In May this year, Sweden saw a major green awareness media campaign featuring regular slots on TV and radio, and presumably a good deal of press coverage. It took place over the space of a week. Through phone canvassing before and after the event, they recorded the following results from their sample. Interest in green issues went from 16-20%, willingness to pay environmental taxes climbed 14-18%, and concern over climate change grew 36-44%. Compared with the massive quantity of green media content, all these increases are quite small. They also found those of a higher educational background, with high political interest, and women generally were most responsive to the coverage. For the old and those with no political interest, there was no measurable effect. The conclusion therefore was the media is not as powerful an instrument as is commonly supposed, and somewhat frustratingly achieving behavioural change was easier among those with positive environmental attitudes already - in other words, the ecological citizen constituency.
There followed a series of questions concerning methodological issues, and particularly what set of attitudes can be said to approximate ecological citizenship. One participant proposed Jagers and Martinsson should perhaps look into a scale that measures ecological citizenship traits, which could go some way to capture the different and complex ways it can be thought and practiced. One example is the tension between intentionality and behavioural outcomes - the "doing good but thinking wrong" problem. For instance, in Sweden many people routinely recycle and pay their carbon taxes without consciously being ecological citizens. Can they therefore be regarded as such? Another problem that was highlighted were how people felt about their capacities to change things - would people do more if they felt what they did already achieved something?
There are some problems from my point of view - not least the way liberal democracy has been abstracted from its capitalist context and an uncertainty whether ecological citizenship can be reconciled to a system amorally concerned with profits - but the research has every chance of putting the definition of 'green constituencies' on a firmer footing. Also, the media findings were particularly fascinating, if a little gloomy from the standpoint of radical politics. But then again, green, like any other political conclusions, tend to be an outgrowth of experience, which to their credit is what Jagers and Martinsson seek to quantify.
What is an ecological citizen? This concept has come out of the work of the well-known green theorist and Keele-resident, Andy Dobson. At the risk of doing some violence to his work, his idea of the ecological citizen is someone who is motivated by green values and a concern for social justice. This can be manifested in many ways through political practice and/or personal behaviour. Jagers and Martinsson have taken upon themselves is to try and operationalise this concept to see if the concept has any analytical purchase.
Jagers began by describing his previous work. His completed PhD thesis was on liberal democracies and sustainable development, where he argued for their potential to adopt comprehensive environmental policies, but enacting them is dependent on institutional development, political will and public support. His second major piece of research looked at the popularity or otherwise of green policy instruments. Unsurprisingly, punitive tools such as Sweden's carbon tax were not popular whereas measures such as subsidised green fuels or an expansion of public transport were more preferable. However, Jagers pointed out that of the sum total of Sweden's taxes, the carbon tax was more popular than other forms of taxation. But if taxation in general is unpopular, then the funding of a greener transport policy is called into question.
This is the context in which Jagers and Martinsson want to go hunting for (Swedish) ecological citizens. They intend to produce a battery of questions for web-based surveys with the aim of identifying this constituency, and start to build an understanding of how their values affect their behaviour. Common ideology, lifestyle, socio-economic status, and education will all be looked at to determine what the key factors are that help explain why some people become ecological citizens. The survey design will also measure levels of altruism, awareness of the consequences of one's behaviour, willingness to adjust behaviour, and openness to environmentally-friendly policy instruments.
Martinsson then moved on to consider research on Swedish environmental attitudes and their relationship to media coverage. The first study he cited indicated a strong relationship. Since 1988, the number of Swedes who perceived the environment as a vitally important political issue has declined from around the 40% mark to approximately 10% ten years later. Here it bumps around this percentage for six years, until 2003-2006, when it jumps from 6% to 13%. It's also worth noting that 1988 was a peak figure, growing from a very low base in 1979. If you compare the recent growth with media coverage of environmental issues, the number of newspaper and magazine articles jumped between February 2005 and January of this year. But is there really a correlation?
A very recent piece of research they've done on the shaping of green opinion by media coverage suggests a very weak relation. In May this year, Sweden saw a major green awareness media campaign featuring regular slots on TV and radio, and presumably a good deal of press coverage. It took place over the space of a week. Through phone canvassing before and after the event, they recorded the following results from their sample. Interest in green issues went from 16-20%, willingness to pay environmental taxes climbed 14-18%, and concern over climate change grew 36-44%. Compared with the massive quantity of green media content, all these increases are quite small. They also found those of a higher educational background, with high political interest, and women generally were most responsive to the coverage. For the old and those with no political interest, there was no measurable effect. The conclusion therefore was the media is not as powerful an instrument as is commonly supposed, and somewhat frustratingly achieving behavioural change was easier among those with positive environmental attitudes already - in other words, the ecological citizen constituency.
There followed a series of questions concerning methodological issues, and particularly what set of attitudes can be said to approximate ecological citizenship. One participant proposed Jagers and Martinsson should perhaps look into a scale that measures ecological citizenship traits, which could go some way to capture the different and complex ways it can be thought and practiced. One example is the tension between intentionality and behavioural outcomes - the "doing good but thinking wrong" problem. For instance, in Sweden many people routinely recycle and pay their carbon taxes without consciously being ecological citizens. Can they therefore be regarded as such? Another problem that was highlighted were how people felt about their capacities to change things - would people do more if they felt what they did already achieved something?
There are some problems from my point of view - not least the way liberal democracy has been abstracted from its capitalist context and an uncertainty whether ecological citizenship can be reconciled to a system amorally concerned with profits - but the research has every chance of putting the definition of 'green constituencies' on a firmer footing. Also, the media findings were particularly fascinating, if a little gloomy from the standpoint of radical politics. But then again, green, like any other political conclusions, tend to be an outgrowth of experience, which to their credit is what Jagers and Martinsson seek to quantify.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)