Anyone

cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/30972521

"Without public trust, effective climate policy is impossible," warns Vincent de Gooyert, sociologist and lead scientist of a paper jointly authored with several researchers from the Dutch Radboud University published this week in Earth System Governance.

"You see this, for example, in the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS). This technology is essential for achieving climate targets, but it is still barely off the ground. Industry wants government subsidies, the government says there is no public support for this, and society wants to see industry take responsibility first. But then you're stuck in a vicious circle."

...

The climate debate is currently often framed from a techno-economic perspective, explains De Gooyert. “Every solution must have direct market value. If that is lacking, no one is willing to take the first step. But a solution such as CCS has no direct market value. In addition to technology, regulations and subsidies, you really need that support, because a policy without support mainly results in resistance.”

De Gooyert collaborated with colleagues Senni Määttä, Sandrino Smeets and Heleen de Coninck on the article. Their recommendations are based, among other things, on extensive experience with discussions between government, business, citizens and other stakeholders on climate issues. They work with environmental organisations, industry and governments in European countries including Finland, Sweden, Spain and Belgium.

...

"What keeps coming back is that policy only works if there is mutual trust. People often think that if we explain it well, support will come naturally. But then you mainly have one-way communication, and research shows that this can be counterproductive. What you end up with is people thinking: there go those arrogant policymakers again, telling us what's good for us, and if we don't agree, they'll push it through anyway."

De Gooyert and his colleagues advocate the use of independent, scientific advisory councils, but also initiatives such as citizens' councils. "Citizens must be able to form an informed opinion independently, and there must be room for complexity and nuance. We must be honest with each other in such sessions: there are difficult choices to be made, but people must be given openness about the options and the consequences. Citizens deserve a say in their environment. To offer comfort to local residents, governments and businesses will also have to make sacrifices. We won't get there with the current method. Then we'll remain in the situation we're in now: no one willing to take big steps on climate policy, while time is running out."

"Without public trust, effective climate policy is impossible," warns Vincent de Gooyert, sociologist and lead scientist of a paper jointly authored with several researchers from the Dutch Radboud University published this week in Earth System Governance.

"You see this, for example, in the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS). This technology is essential for achieving climate targets, but it is still barely off the ground. Industry wants government subsidies, the government says there is no public support for this, and society wants to see industry take responsibility first. But then you're stuck in a vicious circle."

...

The climate debate is currently often framed from a techno-economic perspective, explains De Gooyert. “Every solution must have direct market value. If that is lacking, no one is willing to take the first step. But a solution such as CCS has no direct market value. In addition to technology, regulations and subsidies, you really need that support, because a policy without support mainly results in resistance.”

De Gooyert collaborated with colleagues Senni Määttä, Sandrino Smeets and Heleen de Coninck on the article. Their recommendations are based, among other things, on extensive experience with discussions between government, business, citizens and other stakeholders on climate issues. They work with environmental organisations, industry and governments in European countries including Finland, Sweden, Spain and Belgium.

...

"What keeps coming back is that policy only works if there is mutual trust. People often think that if we explain it well, support will come naturally. But then you mainly have one-way communication, and research shows that this can be counterproductive. What you end up with is people thinking: there go those arrogant policymakers again, telling us what's good for us, and if we don't agree, they'll push it through anyway."

De Gooyert and his colleagues advocate the use of independent, scientific advisory councils, but also initiatives such as citizens' councils. "Citizens must be able to form an informed opinion independently, and there must be room for complexity and nuance. We must be honest with each other in such sessions: there are difficult choices to be made, but people must be given openness about the options and the consequences. Citizens deserve a say in their environment. To offer comfort to local residents, governments and businesses will also have to make sacrifices. We won't get there with the current method. Then we'll remain in the situation we're in now: no one willing to take big steps on climate policy, while time is running out."

cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/30849856

Financial literacy will become a core element of the New Zealand social sciences curriculum for Year 1-10 students from 2027. But what is being proposed presents a limited picture of the factors influencing people’s financial wellbeing.

The specifics of the curriculum have yet to be released. However, the government’s announcement emphasised a focus on individual responsibility. Young people will be taught what they need to live within their means and how to accumulate enough wealth for retirement.

When announcing the new curriculum, Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Scott Simpson said:

We are all consumers, and financial literacy can set young Kiwis up to be savvy consumers – whether it’s knowing how to invest wisely, choose the best loan at a bank, or even identify a scam.

However ... focusing only on individual responsibility risks ignoring the economic systems – and inequities – that shape young people’s lives.

Inequality in New Zealand has risen significantly in the past three decades. And the richest New Zealanders pay less tax than in similar OECD countries.

Knowing how to manage household accounts is, undeniably, an important skill. But individual skills can’t necessarily overcome the hurdles within the broader economic and social context.

...

The resources being used in the classroom also exclude any significant discussion of broader economic systems and policies. Much of what is currently available is created in partnership with banks and financial organisations such as ASB’s GetWise and BNZ’s SavY programmes. These focus on budgeting, saving, banking and paying off debt.

...

Copy link Email X (Twitter) Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn WhatsApp Print

Financial literacy will become a core element of the New Zealand social sciences curriculum for Year 1-10 students from 2027. But what is being proposed presents a limited picture of the factors influencing people’s financial wellbeing.

The specifics of the curriculum have yet to be released. However, the government’s announcement emphasised a focus on individual responsibility. Young people will be taught what they need to live within their means and how to accumulate enough wealth for retirement.

When announcing the new curriculum, Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Scott Simpson said:

We are all consumers, and financial literacy can set young Kiwis up to be savvy consumers – whether it’s knowing how to invest wisely, choose the best loan at a bank, or even identify a scam.

However, as our research shows, focusing only on individual responsibility risks ignoring the economic systems – and inequities – that shape young people’s lives.

Inequality in New Zealand has risen significantly in the past three decades. And the richest New Zealanders pay less tax than in similar OECD countries.

Knowing how to manage household accounts is, undeniably, an important skill. But individual skills can’t necessarily overcome the hurdles within the broader economic and social context. Europeans, get our weekly newsletter with analysis from European scholars Focus on managing money

Financial literacy – under the term “financial capability” – is only briefly mentioned in the current New Zealand curriculum. The topic is positioned as a potential outcome of learning across different subject areas, rather than taught as its own distinct class.

Classroom resources focus on individual actions. Students are taught to manage money, set goals and manage risks.

There is no real discussion of economic inequality in the curriculum. And even the few references there are have a strong focus on personal responsibility.

Teaching resources available for senior economics, for example, explore topics such as income, taxation, product costs and the scarcity of resources.

In senior business studies, references to economic inequality are indirect. For example, the “key concepts” page alludes to ideas such as “supply and demand” and “scarcity” that can loosely be associated with economic inequality. But it is not explicit.

The resources being used in the classroom also exclude any significant discussion of broader economic systems and policies. Much of what is currently available is created in partnership with banks and financial organisations such as ASB’s GetWise and BNZ’s SavY programmes. These focus on budgeting, saving, banking and paying off debt.

...

Globally, there has been a growing emphasis on financial literacy education, partly because of the complexity of modern financial products. And, as one study observed, “the risks of, and responsibility for, financial decisions are being increasingly shifted from governments and employers onto individuals”.

As political economist Chris Clarke has noted, there is an “irreconcilable gap” between the aims of financial literacy education and people’s “actual success in securing their security and wellbeing through financial markets”.

Other economists have pointed out how issues of intergenerational wealth and entrenched socioeconomic disadvantage – the “racial wealth gap” – cannot be overlooked when talking about “poor financial choices and decision making”.

But another form of financial literacy education is possible. Young people could be taught to understand and analyse how governments make decisions for the financial wellbeing of their citizens. They could also learn the value of employment rights, labour and workplace safety laws, and the role of unions and other civic initiatives.

Rather than focusing on taxes and balancing household accounts, students could learn about their individual responsibilities within the economic systems they are part of.

Financial literacy will become a core element of the New Zealand social sciences curriculum for Year 1-10 students from 2027. But what is being proposed presents a limited picture of the factors influencing people’s financial wellbeing.

The specifics of the curriculum have yet to be released. However, the government’s announcement emphasised a focus on individual responsibility. Young people will be taught what they need to live within their means and how to accumulate enough wealth for retirement.

When announcing the new curriculum, Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Scott Simpson said:

We are all consumers, and financial literacy can set young Kiwis up to be savvy consumers – whether it’s knowing how to invest wisely, choose the best loan at a bank, or even identify a scam.

However ... focusing only on individual responsibility risks ignoring the economic systems – and inequities – that shape young people’s lives.

Inequality in New Zealand has risen significantly in the past three decades. And the richest New Zealanders pay less tax than in similar OECD countries.

Knowing how to manage household accounts is, undeniably, an important skill. But individual skills can’t necessarily overcome the hurdles within the broader economic and social context.

...

The resources being used in the classroom also exclude any significant discussion of broader economic systems and policies. Much of what is currently available is created in partnership with banks and financial organisations such as ASB’s GetWise and BNZ’s SavY programmes. These focus on budgeting, saving, banking and paying off debt.

...

Copy link Email X (Twitter) Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn WhatsApp Print

Financial literacy will become a core element of the New Zealand social sciences curriculum for Year 1-10 students from 2027. But what is being proposed presents a limited picture of the factors influencing people’s financial wellbeing.

The specifics of the curriculum have yet to be released. However, the government’s announcement emphasised a focus on individual responsibility. Young people will be taught what they need to live within their means and how to accumulate enough wealth for retirement.

When announcing the new curriculum, Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Scott Simpson said:

We are all consumers, and financial literacy can set young Kiwis up to be savvy consumers – whether it’s knowing how to invest wisely, choose the best loan at a bank, or even identify a scam.

However, as our research shows, focusing only on individual responsibility risks ignoring the economic systems – and inequities – that shape young people’s lives.

Inequality in New Zealand has risen significantly in the past three decades. And the richest New Zealanders pay less tax than in similar OECD countries.

Knowing how to manage household accounts is, undeniably, an important skill. But individual skills can’t necessarily overcome the hurdles within the broader economic and social context. Europeans, get our weekly newsletter with analysis from European scholars Focus on managing money

Financial literacy – under the term “financial capability” – is only briefly mentioned in the current New Zealand curriculum. The topic is positioned as a potential outcome of learning across different subject areas, rather than taught as its own distinct class.

Classroom resources focus on individual actions. Students are taught to manage money, set goals and manage risks.

There is no real discussion of economic inequality in the curriculum. And even the few references there are have a strong focus on personal responsibility.

Teaching resources available for senior economics, for example, explore topics such as income, taxation, product costs and the scarcity of resources.

In senior business studies, references to economic inequality are indirect. For example, the “key concepts” page alludes to ideas such as “supply and demand” and “scarcity” that can loosely be associated with economic inequality. But it is not explicit.

The resources being used in the classroom also exclude any significant discussion of broader economic systems and policies. Much of what is currently available is created in partnership with banks and financial organisations such as ASB’s GetWise and BNZ’s SavY programmes. These focus on budgeting, saving, banking and paying off debt.

...

Globally, there has been a growing emphasis on financial literacy education, partly because of the complexity of modern financial products. And, as one study observed, “the risks of, and responsibility for, financial decisions are being increasingly shifted from governments and employers onto individuals”.

As political economist Chris Clarke has noted, there is an “irreconcilable gap” between the aims of financial literacy education and people’s “actual success in securing their security and wellbeing through financial markets”.

Other economists have pointed out how issues of intergenerational wealth and entrenched socioeconomic disadvantage – the “racial wealth gap” – cannot be overlooked when talking about “poor financial choices and decision making”.

But another form of financial literacy education is possible. Young people could be taught to understand and analyse how governments make decisions for the financial wellbeing of their citizens. They could also learn the value of employment rights, labour and workplace safety laws, and the role of unions and other civic initiatives.

Rather than focusing on taxes and balancing household accounts, students could learn about their individual responsibilities within the economic systems they are part of.

Certain metadata processed by service providers are needed to effectively fight crime, according to the European Commission. Therefore, and due to a lack of a common legal framework across EU member states, the EU intends to introduce new rules requiring service providers to retain non-content metadata, e.g., IP addresses, device location, subscriber data, for a certain amount of time.

It is supposed to affect all infrastructure providers such as telecommunication services and internet service providers, messaging and social media platforms, and others.

In its judgement of 29 April 2025, the European Court of Justice declared that

by establishing and operating an institutionalised citizenship investment scheme, such as the Maltese Citizenship by Naturalisation for Exceptional Services by Direct Investment scheme, [...], which establishes a transactional naturalisation procedure in exchange for predetermined payments or investments and thus amounts to the commercialisation of the grant of the nationality of a Member State and, by extension, that of Union citizenship, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 20 TFEU and Article 4(3) TEU.

The European Commission has brought Malta to court over what is called the ‘golden passport’ scheme. This scheme usually effectively means anyone can get EU citizenship provided they can afford to pay the price, but requires little physical residency in the country prior to gaining citizenship.

According to the Maltese rules, foreigners are required to purchase property, invest in government-approved financial instruments and make a donation of €10,000 to a registered philanthropic, cultural, scientific, animal welfare or similar NGO or society to gain for citizenship.

The EU has viewed such schemes with increasing scepticism, and the European Parliament has called for their discontinuance, arguing hat the outright sale of EU citizenship undermines the mutual trust upon which the European Union is built. The EU citizenship also grants individuals the right to vote and stand as a candidate in local and EU elections, and to travel visa-free within the bloc and to other countries. Selling such freedoms to a privileged base of a few wealthy individuals bears a host of corruption, money laundering and security risks, as well as risks of tax avoidance. It also has possible negative side-effects, such as distortion of local housing markets, the Parliament said.

Malta must now comply with the judgment without delay and stop the practice, or risk further legal action and potential financial penalties.

They said […] they would rape my wife if I do not sit and answer phone calls. They tried all kinds of coercive manoeuvres. You know, using a fire extinguisher to [pretend] to hit me to scare me, using a plastic bag over my head to suffocate me.

...

Experts estimate there are hundreds of thousands of scammers in the industry across Southeast Asia. Some of them are unrepentant criminals, ruthlessly exploiting victims across the world. Others are victims themselves, trafficked and held against their will. Others still are desperate people willing to participate in the industry to survive, but once inside, find they can no longer leave.

...

Investigators have spoken to nearly 100 survivors from compounds mostly located in Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar. They have also interviewed local and international civil society organisations, policymakers and law enforcement throughout Southeast Asia.

Because the industry is hidden behind high walls mounted with barbed wire and surveillance cameras, they have also spent countless hours tracking the scammers online.

...

Link to the article (archived): Ripping the public apart? Politicians’ dark personality and affective polarization -- [February 2025]

New research shows that dark traits of a political leader have an effect when voters feel ideologically close to the politician in question, while the personality traits of political opponents have little to no effect on the degree of polarisation.

In a new study published in the 'European Journal of Political Research,' scientists from University of Amsterdam (UvA), the University of Lausanne and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, linked the personality profiles of over 90 prominent politicians worldwide with voter attitudes in 40 national elections. The results reveal striking patterns. Politicians who score high on the so-called Dark Triad – narcissism (excessive self-focus), psychopathy (emotional coldness and lack of empathy), and Machiavellianism (a tendency toward manipulation and deception) – are associated with greater hostility toward political opponents among their followers.

[The] results suggest that the dark personality of top politicians can be associated with heightened affective polarization in the public – but only for candidates of voters’ in-party (that is, their preferred party), and only for high levels of ideological proximity between the candidate and the voter. The other personality traits have weaker effects, and the personality of out-group candidates (that is, candidates of voters’ most disliked party) seems overall rather marginal. In other terms, what our results suggest is a proximity effect for dark personality in elites.

According to the study, this is somewhat at odds with the popular idea that people might become cynical and radicalized due to how much they dislike the character of their political opponents:

What [...] results suggest is that dark traits in elites have an ‘in-house’ effect. It is ‘our’ candidate, in particular if we feel close to them, that drives our partisan animosity the most – specifically, their dark traits. In other terms, our models predict that it is in particular among very close supporters of dark candidates that we find the highest levels of affective polarization.

The trends shown in our analysis come with some notable limitations, the study says:

Allthough they stem from a large-scale analysis and should thus be more resistant towards critiques of low external validity, they nonetheless build on evidence that is essentially observational in nature, with the inherent risk of endogeneity. Specifically, our data and results cannot exclude the fact that voters self-select into being close to darker candidates because they are affectively polarized – and not the other way around. That is, we cannot prove that it is the dark personality of politicians that cause affective polarization to move upwards.

Democratic risks

The findings cast a critical light on the global rise of ‘dark’ leaders. According to the researchers, the confrontational and uncompromising personality traits of such leaders pose clear risks to democratic processes. ‘When the personal traits of leaders poison public discourse, the public’s willingness to cooperate weakens, social cohesion suffers, and ultimately democratic norms erode,’ says co-author Katjana Gattermann of the UvA.

The researchers call for greater awareness of the role (dark) personality plays in political leadership, in particular when these traits appear in strongmen. Nai concludes: ‘We have shown in previous research that dark personality traits are particularly frequent in authoritarian leaders and populists; the evidence seems thus to be piling up that narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism are important phenomena if we want to understand why politics, today, seems so confrontational.’

These limitations notwithstanding [...] the findings discussed in our article are furthermore worrisome in light of dynamics of democratic backsliding [...]. Dark traits seem to be particularly prevalent among autocrats and populist [...], suggesting a potentially nefarious intersection between uncompromising leaders, democratic deconsolidation and affective polarization. Further research should investigate these dynamics more in detail, including regarding the intervening role of (dark) communication strategies linking elites and voters directly.

... people today are less concerned about the type of vehicle they travel in, and more about how useful it is. To many of us, what matters most is simply getting where we’re going rather than how we look while doing it.

More than technology, mobility has always been governed by social trends and cultural norms that evolve over time. The currently transport revolution therefore no longer depends solely on a group of engineers, but on understanding users’ true needs.

...

The way we move around in Europe is not just changing because of technology, but also because of how we think. For future transport systems to work, we need to understand how different people view, use, and adapt to these new ways of moving.

This means that governments, companies, and innovators need to work together. It’s not enough for transport to be fast or eco-friendly, it must also be accessible and affordable for everyone, taking into account the unique needs of each section of society. This means technology cannot be disconnected from real life. We need to teach people how to use digital tools, make sure everyone has access to new services, and design systems that fit the way people actually live.