<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><rss xmlns:atom='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom' xmlns:openSearch='http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/' version='2.0'><channel><atom:id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3947890440575915643</atom:id><lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:41:34 +0000</lastBuildDate><title>Ann Monroe</title><description></description><link>http://www.annmonroe.com/blog/</link><managingEditor>noreply@blogger.com (AM)</managingEditor><generator>Blogger</generator><openSearch:totalResults>6</openSearch:totalResults><openSearch:startIndex>1</openSearch:startIndex><openSearch:itemsPerPage>25</openSearch:itemsPerPage><item><guid isPermaLink='false'>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3947890440575915643.post-7141765825968384633</guid><pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:53:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2008-04-22T15:40:24.389-04:00</atom:updated><title>Is No Impact Man Bad for the Planet?</title><atom:summary type='text'>A story by Jeffrey Ball in today's Wall Street Journal asks whether Earth Day is bad for the planet - the argument being that it creates a cozy feel-good picture that that fools us into thinking we're actually making progress, and distracts us from the massive (and expensive) changes we need to make to fight global warming.
 It made me wonder whether - in a different way - No Impact Man is bad </atom:summary><link>http://www.annmonroe.com/blog/2008/04/is-no-impact-man-bad-for-planet.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (AM)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr='http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0'>0</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink='false'>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3947890440575915643.post-7441086707860476006</guid><pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:04:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2008-04-21T16:09:22.293-04:00</atom:updated><title>In The Wall Street Journal?</title><atom:summary type='text'>I never thought I'd be grateful to Rupert Murdoch.  But in today's Wall Street Journal, there's a column by Thomas Frank that speaks more sense about politics and the media than anything I've seen in this sorry and never-ending political season.  And it's not a one-off.  As of mid-May, Frank will be a regular Journal columnist.
Frank, author of What's the Matter with Kansas, says the media have </atom:summary><link>http://www.annmonroe.com/blog/2008/04/in-wall-street-journal.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (AM)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr='http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0'>0</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink='false'>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3947890440575915643.post-1368331527605193056</guid><pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:05:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2008-02-15T16:05:09.617-05:00</atom:updated><title>The carrot, not the stick</title><atom:summary type='text'>I was thinking, sitting at the Investor Summit on Climate Risk at the UN yesterday, that there is just too much bad news here.  It's unmanageable.  In fact, I was downright relieved that they didn't let the press into the luncheon to hear keynote speaker Al Gore (who apparently didn't want the press present, though I can't figure out why not).  To hear that the world as we know it will end - and </atom:summary><link>http://www.annmonroe.com/blog/2008/02/carrot-not-stick.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (AM)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr='http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0'>0</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink='false'>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3947890440575915643.post-5504443506016543245</guid><pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:07:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2008-02-15T09:45:42.962-05:00</atom:updated><title>Kleiner Perkins and climate risk</title><atom:summary type='text'>I spent yesterday at a conference at the UN on sustainable investing and climate risk. At the end of the day - all good conferences need a tag for a press release, after all -  a bunch of state treasurers announced a climate risk action plan. Some 40 investors. managing $1.75 trillion, promised to insist that asset managers consider climate risks (and opportunities), invest in clean technologies,</atom:summary><link>http://www.annmonroe.com/blog/2008/02/kleiner-perkins-and-climate-risk.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (AM)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr='http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0'>0</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink='false'>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3947890440575915643.post-6180264970205976355</guid><pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:35:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2008-02-12T17:36:53.587-05:00</atom:updated><title>No, more is not better</title><atom:summary type='text'>Two interesting - and alarming - New York Times articles cited here.  How long is it going to take us to realize that there IS no fuel that's going to solve global warming?  The only way to even approach energy independence or to have a hope of halting global warming, is not to use so much.  US corporations are beginning to figure this out.  Amory Lovins figured it out a long time ago. But as </atom:summary><link>http://www.annmonroe.com/blog/2008/02/no-impact-man-biofuels-far-from-silver.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (AM)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr='http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0'>0</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink='false'>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3947890440575915643.post-3715409091437104735</guid><pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:36:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2008-02-12T16:56:51.590-05:00</atom:updated><title>Real Food TV?</title><atom:summary type='text'>Watching "Hugh's Chicken Run," a three-part series on the moral and culinary offense that is cage-raised chicken that ran on the UK's Channel 4 last month, I kept wondering - will I ever see anything like this on American TV?  But actually, why not?  Sure, it was advocacy journalism.  But it was also marvelous reality TV.  (Here's a link to some clips. )
Here's the concept:  Hugh </atom:summary><link>http://www.annmonroe.com/blog/2008/02/real-food-tv.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (AM)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr='http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0'>0</thr:total></item></channel></rss>