Ferraris for all

A despicable attack on China for providing cheap loans to Africa in today’s Financial Times (and I suspect elsewhere too). The FT article is based on comments by Philippe Maystadt, the president of the European Investment Bank (EIB):

“Philippe Maystadt, the EIB's president, said banks like his were operating in competition with Chinese lenders anxious to extend Beijing's influence across the world.

“ ‘The competition of the Chinese banks is clear,’ said Mr Maystadt, whose European Union-backed bank is the world's biggest multilateral lender. ‘They don't bother about social or human rights conditions.’ “

So not only is China providing cheap capital to Africa but it is not trying to impose its views on African governments. Sounds like China is providing a better deal to Africa all round. The last thing China needs is expensive Western capital with numerous strings attached.

Labels: Africa, china, Europe

There follows a comment by me on the third world development from the 27 November issue of Fund Strategy.

First we had Brics, now we have Chindia. The first term, coined by Jim O'Neill of Goldman Sachs in 2001, has become widely accepted as an acronym to cover Brazil, Russia, India and China. Chindia was coined by Jairam Ramesh, an Indian politician and economist, and now is the basis for several funds.

As a shorthand way of indicating the countries included have huge populations while remaining relatively poor, such terms are fine. But there are many important differences between them. Brazil, unlike the others, is not growing particularly fast. Russia, unlike the others, is heavily dependent on one commodity - oil - and related products. India, despite its rapid growth, has appalling infrastructure and a weak industrial base. China stands out as by far the largest and most rapidly growing economy.

In other ways, too, the discussion of these countries is often distorted. A typical fund manager presentation on any of these countries starts by noting their huge populations. It then raises the spectre of such relatively poor countries moving towards Western levels of consumption. "Just imagine if every family in China buys a food processor," runs the argument. "The share price of the Shanghai Acme Food Processor Company is bound to rocket."

Such discussions are back-to-front. The primary determinant of consumption is production. In other words, it is necessary to work out how the barriers to raising production can be overcome before considering how much consumption can rise. The only reason China can consume so much more than in the past is because its output has risen rapidly.

Admittedly the level of production does not put an absolute limit on consumption in the short term. Up to a point it is possible for countries to borrow overseas to help subsidise their current consumption. It is also possible, as in China today, for individuals to save heavily rather than go all out to consume.

Despite these modifications, the fundamental point remains that production determines the level of consumption over the long term. Therefore, a consideration of such factors as the level of investment and the ambition of the governing class are crucial in assessing development prospects. If the level of production rises, consumption levels are likely to follow. Stagnant output, in contrast, means that the consumption story will fail. The simplistic story of the Brics and Chindia told by many financial institutions misses out the key elements in the development process.

Labels: china, debt, Fund Strategy, india

Today spiked has published an article by me on the redefinition of equality. In the past it used to be about raising the living standards of the masses to realise their full potential. Today it tends to mean attacks on “over-consumption” and support for various forms of rationing.

The peg for my article is the British Conservative party’s adoption of Polly Toynbee, a journalist with a left wing reputation, as their ideological guru. But the redefinition of equality is a global trend. For example, those who rail against global inequality are usually more concerned to limit consumption in the West than to industrialise the third world.

Labels: inequality, spiked

If you want to watch a video of me being interviewed about corruption immediately before the New York Salon meeting on 21 June this year click here.

Labels: corruption, speeches

The Conservative party has launched a “tossers” website to help people avoid getting into debt over Xmas. It is designed to dissuade us from “overspending” by curbing our “inner tosser”.

This initiative could, with some justification, be dismissed as a stupid stunt by an organisation which has lost any sense of political direction. But it does have a horrible logic to it. Curbing what is seen as “overconsumption” is a favourite theme of today’s politicians.

Labels: consumption, debt

An astute although cynical article by Toby Young in the Spectator (“The social climber’s case for going green”, 25 November) on how conspicuous conservation has replaced conspicuous consumption. The rich used to flaunt their supposed superiority by consuming high profile luxury goods. Today, in contrast, they are desparate to highlight themselves as conservationist:

“In The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899), [Thorstein] Veblen coined the phrase ‘conspicuous consumption’ to describe the wasteful habits of those at the top of American society. In his view, the reason the rich and powerful spent so much more than they needed on things like housewares was to display their membership of the leisure class. Silver knives and forks, for instance, might not be as practical as cutlery made from steel, but their very impracticality made them a positive status indicator. According to Veblen, wasting money and resources was a way for the privileged elite to advertise their superiority.

“At the beginning of the 21st century, the exact opposite is true: conservation, rather than waste, is the credo of the ruling class. For that reason alone it’s high time I jumped on the bandwagon.”

Labels: consumption, environment

An interesting article defending flying as one of the greenest ways to travel in today’s Guardian. Among the arguments put forward by Giovanni Bisignani, the director-general and chief executive officer of the International Air Transport Association:

* Air travel currently accounts for only 2% of global carbon emissions.

* The International Panel on Climate Change estimates the proportion could rise to 3% by 2050.

* Fuel efficiency has improved immensely over the past 40 years.

* European air traffic control wastes fuel because there are 34 different navigation providers.

* 28m jobs and $3 trillion in economic activity (8% of global GDP) would disappear if airline flights were stopped - never mind foreign holidays.

Labels: climate, energy, environment, transport

There follows a comment by me on the legacy of Milton Friedman from the 20 November issue of Fund Strategy.

Few people under the age of 40 are likely to have heard of Milton Friedman, the doyen of free market economics who died last week. Friedman was one of the key intellectual forces behind what became known as the Thatcher revolution in Britain and the Reagan revolution in America. Yet, given recent developments, his corpse is probably already spinning.

Friedman, who won a Nobel prize in 1976, was partly known as a formidable technical economist. Much of his work focused on the relationship between the money supply and economic activity.

One conclusion he drew was that America's Federal Reserve was largely responsible for the Great Depression of the 1930s. Although it had the means, it lacked the will to inject sufficient liquidity into the system when it was needed. This conclusion points to another key theme of Friedman's work: scepticism about the role of the state in resolving economic problems.

But Friedman was not just an academic. He played a key role in popularising his ideas in newspapers and television programmes. For instance, his Free to Choose documentary series was broadcast by the BBC in 1980. Many others also promoted his ideas in the free-market upsurge of the time.

Yet although Friedman is often associated with the Conservative party under Margaret Thatcher, it was Labour that first started to implement his ideas. As Samuel Brittan, a veteran Financial Times columnist, has pointed out, it was James Callaghan, then prime minister, who argued in 1976 that governments could not spend their way into full employment.

In practice this meant pursuing cuts in public spending, along with pay restraint, to deal with what was then called "stagflation" - an ugly combination of stagnation and high inflation.

Where Labour led the Conservatives followed with fervour. What became known as "Thatcherism" involved attacks on public-sector workers and trade unions. In the process the idea that "There is No Alternative" to the market - dubbed "Tina" - was popularised. Socialism and Keynesianism were both discredited in the process.

The great irony of this development was that it robbed conservatism of a sense of purpose. The attack on the unions and the comparisons with the Soviet bloc provided conservatives with a mission. In contrast, today we have a strange combination of Tina without any sense of direction.

The result is a peculiar pro-market anti-capitalism. Capitalism is seen as creating enormous problems - climate change being the most popular current example - but at the same time there is no alternative vision. The result is a popular mood of gloom and despondency. Friedman has left a strange legacy.

Labels: America, economics, Fund Strategy, television

It looks like good news. Tomorrow ministers from the world’s richest and largest countries are due to sign an agreement to spend huge sums on an experimental nuclear fusion reactor. According to article on the BBC website:

“On 21 November ministers from Europe, Japan, the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the United States of America meet in Paris to sign an agreement to construct an international experiment on the scale of a fusion power plant - Iter (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor; "the way" in Latin) in the South of France.”

Nuclear fusion is the reaction that powers the sun and other stars. It relies on the fusion of two isotopes of hydrogen - deuterium and tritium – to produce large amounts of energy. If it can be harnessed in a controlled reaction it has the potential to provide huge amounts of plentiful energy for humanity.

Labels: energy

China is increasingly being used to symbolise the supposed shortcomings of economic development. The advantages of greater development are being ignored, or at least downplayed, while the associated problems are being exaggerated.

The New York Times has a typical piece along these lines today with an article headlined “A Troubled River Mirrors China’s Path to Modernity”. The piece, accompanied by video images and a slide show on the website, argues that:

“For centuries, the Yellow River symbolized the greatness and sorrows of China’s ancient civilization, as emperors equated controlling the river and taming its catastrophic floods with controlling China. Now, the river is a very different symbol — of the dire state of China’s limited resources at a time when the country’s soaring economic growth needs more of everything.”

No doubt rapid economic development is causing problems such as pollution. But it should also provide the resources to solve such problems along with vastly improving the lives of its 1.3 billion citizens.

Labels: china, development

The Economist, often seen as the house journal of free market economics, seems to be taking a dim view of the market and a positive view of environmentalism. Its lead comment, on alternative energy, in the current issue (18 November) says “society should rejoice that greenery is in vogue”. In the same article it predicts that many investors will lose substantial money on alternative energy technology.

No doubt it is true that the market is far from perfect and many investors could lose out on green technology - although it is interesting the Economist’s view of the market is so jaded. But the enormous harm that mainstream environmentalist ideas can do to economic growth is entirely missed.

Labels: energy, environment

A weird exchange between Christopher Monckton, a former policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher, and George Monbiot, an environmental campaigner and Guardian columnist. Monckton, otherwise known as the third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, had two articles in the Sunday Telegraph (5 November and 12 November) arguing that much climate science is bunk. For him it is apparently part of a left wing conspiracy run by the United Nations - although this view does not mean that his entire argument is necessarily false.

Next Monbiot waded in with a column in the Guardian accusuing Monckton of writing a “mixture of cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish”. He also attacked Monckton for not writing in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (although the last time I looked the Guardian, like the Sunday Telegraph, was also a newspaper). Monckton then responded by saying that it was Monbiot who had his science totally wrong. The aristocrat concluded his article by saying: “gie the puir numpty a cigar - at least he spelled my name right.”

My conclusion on this sorry affair is that science should be left to the scientists. There is enough for the rest of us to argue about in relation to the correct economic and political response to climate change. Such a response does not automatically follow from the natural science although obviously it should be informed by the latest scientific thinking on the question.

Labels: environment, science

An international team of researchers has found that the trend towards deforestation is not as bad a previously assumed. The news is important as deforestation is one of the main sources of global greenhouse emissions (classified in the Stern report as part of “land use”).

An article on the BBC website says that the team used a new technique which measures timber volumes, biomass and captured carbon, rather than just land areas covered by trees. Its findings will be published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, an American journal:

“the researchers found that forest stocks had actually expanded over the past 15 years in 22 of the world's 50 most forested nations.

“They also showed increases in biomass and carbon storage capacity in about half of the 50 countries.

“But the data also revealed that forest area and biomass was still in decline in Brazil and Indonesia, home to some of the world's most important rainforests.”

The report also concluded that as societies get richer they tend to shift from deforestation to net gains in tree cover:

“The researchers found that when Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita reached $4,600 (£2,400), many nations experienced forest transition and saw an increase in forestry growing stock (volume of useable timber).”

Labels: climate, environment

There follows a review by me of George Monbiot’s Heat (Allen Lane 2006) from the 13 November issue of Fund Strategy magazine. James Heartfield also did a particularly astute review of the book for spiked.

It is almost possible to feel sorry for George Monbiot. The government's Stern report on the economics of climate change has overshadowed the climate campaigner and Guardian columnist's book on the same topic. The report is more thoroughly grounded in mainstream science and certainly more rigorous in its economics.

Nevertheless, there are reasons why it is worth reading Monbiot's book, Heat, alongside Stern. Whereas Sir Nicholas Stern is constrained by diplomatic considerations - he has to be guarded in what he says as his is a government report - Monbiot can be blunt.

Arguably Monbiot is more honest about the impact of a strategy based on curbing energy demand than Stern. Both Stern and Monbiot argue a broadly similar line, although the details and some of the conclusions they draw are different.

Monbiot's starting point is the incorrect assumption that there is a trade-off between popular prosperity and curbing climate change's impact. His premise leads to the conclusion that austerity and authoritarianism are needed to deal with global warming:

"For the campaign against climate change is an odd one. Unlike almost all the public protests which have preceded it, it is a campaign not for abundance but for austerity. It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less. It is a campaign not just against other people, but also against ourselves" (p215).

If humanity's survival depended on accepting austerity and dictatorship, perhaps these twin evils could be justified. But any such case would have to be incredibly strong since the strategy proposed by Monbiot, apart from anything else, would leave much of the world in dire poverty.

It should not be forgotten that, according to World Bank figures, a billion people still live on less than one dollar a day and 2.7 billion live on less than two dollars. Such poverty has terrible consequences for the health, longevity and well-being of the bulk of the world's population. In addition, rationing and curbing democracy are objectionable in principle.

As it happens, Monbiot's science is rather ropey. His argument that by 2030 the rich countries need to cut carbon emissions by 90% seems to be based on calculations by Colin Forrest, "who is not a professional climate scientist but appears to have done his homework" (p15-16). Monbiot does not say who Forrest is but, judging from a search on Google, he appears to be a member of Friends of the Earth in Scotland.

But even if the 90% figure is correct, it does not follow that Monbiot's strategy is right. Imposing austerity means, by definition, making the world poorer. But the reality is that the richer we are, the better a position we will be in to tackle climate change.

Monbiot is wrong to argue that global warming should be seen as a priority above all others. It is not an isolated challenge but linked to the more general struggle for social progress. Mass affluence is good in its own right, while also enabling humanity to have greater control over nature.

The need for more prosperity is particularly acute in the developing world. Not only would the abolition of poverty be good in itself but it would also put such societies in a better position to tackle global warming. They would have more resources at their disposal and more diversified economies.

But Monbiot uses the poor as an argument for austerity in the West. "By turning on the lights, filling the kettle, taking the children to school, driving to the shops, we are condemning other people to death. We do not see ourselves as killers. We perform these acts without passion or intent" (p22). Such moralising is unhelpful and off-putting.

Contrary to Monbiot's argument, it is both possible and desirable to promote prosperity and tackle climate change at the same time. Indeed, the two are inextricably linked.

The key challenge is to find ways of substantially bolstering energy supplies while controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Fortunately, such technologies already exist. Although no doubt they could be considerably improved, it is already possible to supply far more power with existing technology. Scientists and engineers are in the best position to identify the best mix of technologies, but an outline of possibilities is already feasible.

Nuclear power is likely to play a role. Although care must be taken when disposing of the waste, it has the potential to provide huge amounts of electricity without greenhouse emissions.

Further into the future, it might be possible to generate power from nuclear fusion (fusing together atoms) rather than fission (splitting atoms apart). Fusion's advantage is that its waste is water, not heavy radioactive materials.

Hydroelectric power is another existing form of energy that does not emit greenhouse gases. It has lost popularity in recent years as environmentalists have campaigned against it. But in many places it can provide abundant electricity.

Even fossil fuels can be made more green. Carbon capture and storage means emissions can be removed from power stations that use fossil fuels. They can then be stored underground or under the sea bed.

More prosperity would also provide the resources to help humanity adapt to climate change's effects. For example, Bangladesh could have modern flood defences similar to those already used in the Netherlands. Human settlements could be moved to higher ground if threatened by flooding in their present locations.

Monbiot's misanthropic outlook means he either downplays these possibilities or ignores them completely. He has a dim view of human beings and their capacity to use ingenuity to transform their environment for the better.

Rather than seeing the promotion of mass affluence and tackling climate change as contradictory, they should be viewed as part of the same challenge. The drive for popular prosperity puts humanity in a better position to deal with environmental problems.

Labels: book, energy, environment, Fund Strategy, health, review, spiked

I am starting to lobby for the creation of a new concept to describe a striking contemporary phenomenon: ecotism. Although the concept is used in various different ways the closest I can find on the internet to the definition of an ecotist I would use is: “a person who believes s/he might be contributing to global warming but refuses to trade the Hummer for a Prius”. I would suggest the more general: “a person who professes environmentalist principles but finds it hard to stick to them in practice”.

I started thinking about this when reading yesterday’s Ecotist column in the Guardian by Will Duguid (which I suspect is a pseudonym) on why weddings are environmentally unsound. The column is probably meant to be a joke but, with po-faced writers such as Leo Hickman of the Guardian and Lucy Siegle of the Observer having such a high profile, it is hard to tell. If anything the target of the column’s humour – if it can be called that – is those who do not consistently follow environmentalist principles in practice.

Mick Hume, the editor of spiked, wrote a related column in the Times on Friday. He discussed a Times / Populus poll earlier in the week which showed that there is a “green divide” between what people say they do for the environment and what they actually do. He makes the point that, as with more conventional religions, it is easier to observe the new eco-religion in the breach than in the observance.

Labels: environment, spiked

The new Human Development Report from the United Nations contains some wrenching statistics. Some 1.2 billion people lack access to safe water and 2.6 billion are without access to sanitation. Almost two million children a year die as a result.

However, there are reasons to be wary about the framework in which these statistics are set. Kevin Watkins, the lead author, used to work for Oxfam. It also includes a contribution by Gordon Brown, the British Chancellor, on playing the financial markets (by issuing long-term bonds) to fund development. More generally the Millennium Development Goals relating to water, as with the other official goals, are exceedingly meagre.

Labels: development

You might think the construction of a £1bn purpose-built clean coal power station would be a cause for celebration among environmentalists. According to a piece in yesterday’s Times a plant which is expected to be built in Teeside will have its emissions syphoned off and stored under the North Sea. However, a spokesman from Greenpeace was quoted as saying:

“This plant will lock us into another 50 years of wasted energy. Like all our outdated, crumbling power stations, this proposed plant will waste two thirds of the energy it generates as thrown away heat.”

Labels: climate, energy, environment

There follows an editorial by me from the 6 November issue of Fund Strategy on green taxes. Mick Hume wrote an article on a similar theme on spiked on 31 October.

The Stern review on the economics of climate change has brought renewed calls for the extension of green taxes. There are several reasons why such a move should be opposed.

For a start they are a restriction on personal freedom. In a free society it should not be up to government to try to influence how much we drink, drive or how many plastic bags we use. As long as we do not harm others we should be free to do what we want. The fact that such arguments are rarely raised shows how widely state intervention into our personal lives has become accepted.

Sadly, many individuals seem to find it acceptable that governments should interfere in our personal behaviour.

Many would counter that such intervention is necessary to "save the planet". But green taxes cannot possibly help to achieve such a grandiose objective.

Green taxes are generally justified on the grounds of reducing externalities. For example, a driver does not incur the environmental costs of his car when he buys or runs it. Green taxes ostensibly raise the price of the car to incorporate these additional costs.

One problem with this argument is that it ignores the fact that externalities can be positive as well as negative. The huge expansion of physical mobility, which cars have played a key role in creating, has enormous benefits.

It means that individuals are no longer largely confined to their local areas. People can drive to work, school, the shops, on holiday or simply for pleasure. Penalising these activities with a punitive tax is undesirable.

In any case curbing demand for energy is the wrong way to tackle climate change. On the contrary, what is needed is a massive increase in energy supply. The richer we are and the more energy we have the better a position we are likely to be in to counter the effects of global warming.

Much of the technology to achieve this objective already exists, although no doubt it could be improved with more investment. Neither nuclear power nor hydroelectric power emit greenhouse gases. Even fossil fuels can be made clean with the use of carbon capture and storage technology.

The rapid economic growth that the investment in such technology could promote would provide further resources to help tackle global warming.

But instead of investing substantially in such technology, the government is likely to take the easy option of imposing a few green taxes.

It is far easier to make grandiose statements on climate change and start taxing the use of plastic bags than take the necessary action to deal with the problem.

Labels: climate, economics, energy, environment, Fund Strategy, spiked, technology

There follows a news analysis I wrote for the 6 November issue of Fund Strategy on the Stern report on the economics of climate change. Rather than taking a polemical line it simply outlines some of the key concepts in the report:

Despite the massive coverage of the Stern review on the economics of climate change, many of its key arguments have hardly been scrutinised. The discussion tends to focus on scary scenarios of what climate change could mean and proposals for solving the problem.

Relatively little attention has been paid to the link between the perceived problem and the proposed solutions. Yet economic reasoning, especially in relation to risk and uncertainty, is central to the discussion.

From the first page onwards there are striking claims that have not been properly investigated. On the first page of the main report the premise of its argument is stated baldly: "Climate change presents a unique challenge for economics: it is the greatest example of market failure we have ever seen."

Such a claim would have been inconceivable a few years ago. In the days of the battle between capitalism and socialism it is hard to imagine a British government report conceding such a massive market failure.

Of course, Sir Nicholas Stern, the main author of the report and a former chief economist at the World Bank, is not advocating the replacement of the market with a socialist society. But his premise leads to the conclusion that intervention is needed to mitigate the impact of climate change.

This market failure takes the form of the existence of massive externalities related to climate change. For the benefit of those who have notstudied economics, an externality is a cost that is not embodied in the price of a good or service. For example, it could be argued that the environmental cost of carbonemissions from a car does not reflect the price paid to purchase and run the vehicle.

Externalities have gone from a relatively marginal concept in economics to centre stage. Both free marketeers and people who would regard themselves as more to the left often see externalities as central to their economic analysis nowadays. The debate tends to be more on how to reduce such externalities rather than on whether they are a useful way to conceptualise the impact of climate change.

From these assumptions the proposals put forward to tackle the problem of climate change follow logically. Stern proposes three sets of measures to mitigate the impact of change:

• Carbon pricing through tax, emissions trading or regulation. The effect of pricing is to make users pay the full costs of their energy use. For example, a green tax could raise the amount spent to run a car in line with the full environmental costs.

• Technology policy involves the use of new forms of low-carbon technology to reduce carbon emissions. For instance, forms of energy such as hydroelectric, nuclear, wind power and solar do not emit greenhouse gases. Technology is also available to capture carbon dioxide - for instance, at power stations - and store it.

• Public education to change behaviour. This includes all sorts of measures to encourage people to use energy in a more frugal and efficient way.

Although it has received little attention the report also sees a role for adaptation in coping with global warming. Such measures could include building modern flood defences and moving human settlements to higher ground. Although such moves would not stop climate change, they would reduce its impact on humanity.

Getting these policies implemented on a global scale is examined as a "collective action problem". In other words, although everyone has an interest in mitigating climate change, individual nations also have an interest in "free riding" on others. Britain, for instance, could bear the costs of tackling climate change while another country could decide to let others take the burden. To examine this question the report enters arcane academic areas such as game theory and the prisoner's dilemma game.

The report suggests several ways to overcome the collective action problem. These include developing a shared understanding of long-term goals for climate policy, building institutions for cooperation and creating conditions for collective action. Building on existing arrangements, such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, is seen is an important part of the process.

[Separate article in box]

Change or Catastophe?

One of the most confusing things about the discussion of global warming is the muddling of climate change with climate catastrophe. There is a broad scientific consensus that the earth is warming and that humans have played a role in the process. The idea that we are on the verge of a climate catastrophe is more controversial among scientists.

Even more confusingly, the British government and the Stern review do not agree on the question of climate catastrophe. The government, virtually unnoticed, has publicly committed itself to the idea of catastrophe. Tony Blair, along with his Dutch counterpart, Jan Peter Balkenende, recently wrote an open letter arguing that: "We have only 10-15 years to take the steps we need to avoid catastrophic tipping points."

In contrast, the Stern review uses the scientific notion of feedbacks rather than the popular idea of a "tipping point". It is also far more tentative than the government in its conclusions: "In the future, climate change itself could trigger increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, further amplifying warming. These potentially powerful feedbacks are less well understood and are only beginning to be quantified" (p10). So for the Stern report the existence of feedbacks is uncertain rather than settled.

However, Stern comes to similar conclusions to Blair by invoking the precautionary principle in relation to uncertainty. Although the existence of powerful feedbacks is unclear, it is seen as prudent to act as if the world is facing catastrophe. Therefore, for Stern it makes sense to act as if a catastrophe is imminent even though it may not be. As the report argues: "Uncertainty is an argument for a more, not less, demanding goal, because of the size of the adverse climate change impacts in the worst-case scenarios" (pxvii).

Labels: economics, energy, environment, Fund Strategy, technology

It seems that some climate scientists are becoming upset by the equating of climate change and climate catastrophe by campaigners and the British government. Mike Hulme, the director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, has written an article to this effect on the BBC website. He says: “I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric.”

Hulme goes on to point out that Tony Blair has already warned that the world faces the prospect of “crossing a catastrophic tipping point”. In apparent despair Hulme then asks:

“Why is it not just campaigners, but politicians and scientists too, who are openly confusing the language of fear, terror and disaster with the observable physical reality of climate change, actively ignoring the careful hedging which surrounds science's predictions?”

Labels: climate, environment, science

An inspiring look into a possible future for air travel. The BBC website has an article on a plane, developed by the Cambridge-MIT Institute, with a revolutionary “blended wing” design. This shape enables the plane to be far quieter and more efficient than existing models. Sadly the current climate of risk aversion means that the aircraft will take a long time to be developed and it may never be produced on a mass scale. But it shows the potential for developing aircraft technology in a way that does less damage to the environment.

Labels: energy, science, technology, transport

Monitoring the alleged sins of modern life

The ever miserable Ecologist magazine has done a critique of the “Rabbit” – apparently the world’s bestselling vibrator - in its November issue. Pat Thomas, the magazine’s health editor, finds that the Rabbit is intimately related to consumerism and capitalism. She suggests the following framework for examining the impact of the device:

“(W)hat happens if you subject the rabbit to the kind of simple but reasonable questions that should be asked of any technology: How much and what kind of waste does it generate? How does it affect our perception of our needs? To what extent does it redefine reality? What is its potential to become addictive? What is lost in using it? What aspects of reality does it allow us to ignore? Does it reduce, deaden or enhance the human experience? What aspects of the inner self does it reflect? Does it concentrate or equalise power? Does it foster diversity?” (Strangely, CO2 emissions do not appear on this list).

Not surprisingly the article comes to a negative conclusion: “like fast food, it may fill a hole, but it hardly makes a dent in the void”. Still I suppose it may show that, at least in a literal sense, not all ecologists are wankers.

Labels: sin tracker, technology

Last weekend I debated the Battle for Affluence at the Battle of Ideas festival. The thrust of my argument was that affluence has proved enormously beneficial for humanity and will continue to do so. In contrast others, such as Professor Avner Offer of Oxford university and Mark Easton of the BBC, argued that our preoccupation with prosperity has gone too far. In their view other factors, such as well-being, should be the main focus of government policy. Others on the panel included Professor Nicholas Crafts of Warwick university and Jenny Davey of the Times (London). Later that evening I also debated Professor Offer on BBC Radio Five Live.

At the conference I also chaired a session in which Damned by Debt Relief, a film made by Worldwrite, had its world premiere. The film showed how the Highly Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) initiative imposes new conditions on the poor but does not offer any new money. A trailer for the film can be viewed here.

Other sessions at the weekend included a debate on the “happiness trap” and a series on the Battle over Nature.

Labels: affluenza, film, happiness, media appearances, radio, speeches, Worldwrite

Larry Summers, a former US Treasury secretary, attempted to explain the widespread disillusionment with affluence in Monday’s Financial Times (“The global middle class cries out for reassurance” 30 October 2006). In his view the main explanation is the squeezing of the global middle class as a result of globalisation and technical change. Two groups have benefited from these developments: low income countries and the owners of valuable assets. The rest have suffered.

It is positive that Summers recognises the widespread disaffection with prosperity but his explanation is flawed. Even those at the top of society are anxious about economic growth. For more on this subject see my spiked essay on “Who’s afraid of economic growth”. It can be reached by clicking the link to the left.

Summer’s thesis is developed in more detail in a long in-house feature in today’s FT (“Anxious middle: why ordinary Americans have missed out on the benefits of growth”). It argues that median incomes have stagnated in America despite the booming economy.

Labels: economics, inequality, spiked

Monitoring the alleged sins of modern life

It seems that fatties are not just damaging themselves but destroying the earth too. An article in the New York Times quotes recent research to this effect (Gina Kolata “For a world of woes, we blame cookie monsters” 29 October):

“This latest contribution to the obesity debate comes in an article by Sheldon H. Jacobson of the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana and his doctoral student, Laura McLay. Their paper, published in the current issue of The Engineering Economist, calculates how much extra gasoline is used to transport Americans now that they have grown fatter. The answer, they said, is a billion gallons a year.

“Their conclusion is in the same vein as a letter published last year in The American Journal of Public Health. Its authors, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, did a sort of back-of-the-envelope calculation of how much extra fuel airlines spend hauling around fatter Americans. The answer, they wrote, based on the extra 10 pounds the average American gained in the 1990’s, is 350 million gallons, which means an extra 3.8 million tons of carbon dioxide.”

Thankfully some people are willing to defend the fatties. The November issue of Reason has a review of two books arguing that critics should lay off (Jacob Sullum “Lay off the fatties”). It contends that the obesity discussion is unnecessarily alarmist.

Labels: consumption, health, obesity, sin tracker