From the looks of things, democracy is on the move once again. Elections have been successfully held in Iraq, the Palestinian Territories and the Ukraine. People power is making itself heard in Lebanon as well. It's a heady time for citizens who, perhaps for the first time in their lives, are able to have a voice in their own futures.

However, despite these bright spots, there are still places where democracy is elusive. It's interesting that when we talk about democratization, the tendency is to think in terms of a nation. But what about democracy across nations, or democratization of the planet? Democracy at the global level is increasingly important in the age of globalization, where even the domestic policies of a nation can cause global side effects.

As much attention as the democratization of nations gets, we have a long way to go before we achieve global democracy. The powerful nations of the developed North are more or less free to implement policies as they wish, even though those nations account for roughly one-fifth of the world's population. They may work through existing international bodies, but as we'll see, that does not guarantee a democratically fair outcome.

Fareed Zakaria is justifiably enthusiastic about hybrid automobile technology in his article Imagine: 500 Miles Per Gallon. He explains how much of the technology necessary to reach mileage ratings of 500 miles per gallon (MPG) is already available, waiting to be put into use, and how our future cars will be plugged in overnight to recharge the batteries, not unlike our mobile phones and iPods. He says, "Hybrid technology is the answer to the petroleum problem."

But not once does he mention "changing our driving habits" as a complementary option to help reduce fuel consumption. Whether intentional or not, and although the article is about hybrids, this omission reinforces the pro-technology myth that we in the developed world can continue to live our lives of relative luxury (and considerable destructiveness) with a clear conscience, trusting with blind faith that technology will solve our problems.

Solving the "petroleum problem" will not solve the "automobile problem." A 500 MPG hybrid car will not reduce the more than one million annual traffic fatalities world-wide. A 1,000 MPG hybrid car will not reduce congestion and the countless hours wasted in traffic jams. Even a solar-powered car, running on 100% renewable energy, will not reduce the urban sprawl (first made possible by automobiles) and its negative effect on quality of life. And based on current trends in population growth and rising living standards, these problems are likely to get much worse unless we -- individuals and governments -- are willing to rethink how we use cars.

I'm not always very good at noticing the nuances in life. My friends kid me when I say a glass of wine is fine, while they all insist it smells of cork. Similarly, whenever I see a label that says "New & Improved" or "Great New Taste," whether it be for chewing gum or toothpaste or shampoo, I can never tell the difference between the old version and the "New & Improved" one. It's kind of embarrassing, really. If I wasn't such a trusting consumer, I might suspect that the only thing that's new is the packaging.

But I don't want to cast doubt on the dedicated researchers in the chewing gum laboratory who work year-in and year-out so that I can always look forward to an even better chewing experience. It must be terribly challenging and stressful to have to come up with an improved formula every year. Funny... I've never met anyone who works in "chewing gum flavor retention research." Have you?

Of course, some things -- like mobile phones -- are advancing so rapidly that they really do seem to change every six months. Therefore mobile phone advertisers have an easy job; the phones practically sell themselves. But shampoo? How many improvements can you make to shampoo?

Surely you've heard of The Gates, by Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on display in New York City's Central Park. But perhaps you haven't heard of those other gates, The Somerville Gates.

With enough guns and spies, the War on Terror can be won. Those may not be the exact words of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, but they seem to summarize the Bush administration's approach to fighting terrorism. On Saturday, Rumsfeld told European defense officials:

It will take the cooperation of many nations to stop the proliferation of dangerous weapons... and it surely takes a community of nations to gather intelligence about extremist networks, to break up financial support lines, or to apprehend suspected terrorists.

These steps, though necessary, are only part of the solution. They ignore the causes, such as extreme poverty and a lack of basic human rights, that create a fertile breeding ground for terrorism. If addressing the causes is not an integral part of the War on Terror, then every time a terrorist is jailed or killed, another eager recruit will step forward to take his place.

To keep people from wanting to become terrorists, give them food and clean water. Give the children the chance to go to school. Give the adults the possibility to work to earn a decent living. Then they'll find more constructive ways to change their lives than by strapping on a vest loaded with explosives.

We all know what our twenty-first century lifestyle is doing to our health. Eating more fatty foods and getting less regular exercise means that more and more people are overweight. In some developed countries more than half the population is affected.

It appears that our four-legged friends suffer from the same fate. According to the Swiss Beobachter magazine (in German), between 30% and 50% of dogs and cats in Swiss households are overweight. The causes are not that much different than for their two-legged masters: serving portions are too big, and pets that spend the whole day alone indoors don't get enough exercise.

Beobachter also gives some insight into how the marketing department gets involved. The target audience for the pet food manufacturer is not just the pet, but also its owner. If the owner opens a package of pet food and it smells good, he is likely to dish out more of it. Unfortunately, what might smell appealing to the owner can be overpowering to the more sensitive noses of our furry friends. Therefore the pet food research labs face the challenge of finding a recipe that will make everyone happy: A recipe that gives the owner a quick burst of aroma when the package is first opened, but that quickly dissipates so that Fifi will like it too.

To what extent is it the media's responsibility to assist in the dissemination of information about sustainable development (SD)? This rather provocative question became the main topic of a round-table discussion entitled The Role of the Media from the Perspective of Sustainable Development, which took place during the National Forum on Education for Sustainable Development on 29 January 2005 at the University of Geneva.

Dr. Jacques Mirenowicz, co-editor of the Swiss-French magazine La Revue Durable, began by saying that the subject of sustainability is a complex one, and the media is needed to simplify the subject for public consumption. This is, after all, what the media does every day: They take possibly complex subjects and present them in a simpler form. Dr. Mirenowicz went on to say that not only is SD complex, but it doesn't fit in the "time frame" that the media typically work with. That is, the media deal best with the present: It is much easier to describe what happened in Iraq today than to explain how global warming and lifestyles of over-consumption will affect the planet over the coming decades.

Now that flat computer screens are becoming affordable, it's possible to reclaim part of the working surface that you once called your desktop... where you used to be able to work, at least until you tried to put a computer on it. Replacing that old cathode ray tube (CRT) screen with a new energy-efficient flat screen frees up a considerable amount of space.

But that's only one part of the problem solved; then there's the computer itself to deal with. Desktop computers come in a number of sizes, the most common being what's called a "tower." They may be called desktop computers, but once you put such a computer on your desktop, there isn't much room left for anything else.

Why do those boxes need to be so big? If you've ever opened one up, you'll see that there's a lot of unused space in there. Or more precisely, it's space that is available if you want to add another disk or an additional card for graphics or networking or something along those lines.

In False Prophets, Bad Economics, Bjorn Lomborg pooh-poohs headlines predicting extreme environmental changes caused by global warming. Megadroughts? Famine? The shutting down of the Gulf Stream? He believes such headlines are "fiction, the stuff of Hollywood imaginations." In fact, he simply does not know what lies ahead. Neither he nor anyone else really knows how the planet will react to mankind's continued abuse. But based on a growing body of data, such possibilities cannot be ruled out.

He then cites a U.N. projection for the year 2100 as justification for essentially ignoring the Kyoto Protocol and doing nothing to fight global warming in this century, and instead concentrating on poverty reduction: According to the U.N., developing countries will be two to four times richer in 2100 than they are today. By Lomborg's logic, that means that a country like Bangladesh -- one that is vulnerable to rising sea levels -- will be a "rich Netherlands" by 2100 if we fund development projects today. Therefore it will be able to take care of its own global warming problems. This raises two questions: