Saturday, May 31, 2008
Scaling new heights
John Komlos, a professor of economics at the University of Munich, has evidently done extensive work on how physical height generally rises with prosperity – what he calls “anthropometric history”. For example, he is quoted in a recent article in the Chicago Tribune (28 May) saying: "height is a pretty good indicator of how well a society treats its children and young people." He has also looked at why average heights in Many European countries have overtaken those in America.
Komlos got his PhD under Robert Fogel of the University of Chicago (see posts of 30 July 2006, 7 August 2006 and 21 December 2007).
Komlos got his PhD under Robert Fogel of the University of Chicago (see posts of 30 July 2006, 7 August 2006 and 21 December 2007).
Monday, May 26, 2008
Channel 4 environmental documentaries
Tonight watched the Life after people documentary on Channel 4. It was based on an interesting thought experiment: what would happen to the earth if humans suddenly disappeared. The documentary looked at the Earth at different time periods of humanity’s disappearance to see how long signs of humanity would survive. No doubt many environmentalists would see it as showing that humanity is simply a thin veneer on the surface of the earth – nature would quickly reclaim the planet. But it would also be possible to wonder at how much humans have reshaped the planet in their relatively short time on Earth. Josie Appleton also wrote a review article on the same subject for spiked last year.
Last night I watched the 11th Hour, a 2007 environmentalist documentary presented and produced by Leonardo DiCaprio, on Channel 4. The programme was predictably awful but at least it had the virtue of spelling out some of the misanthropic (and often absurd) premises of environmentalist thought. For example, the view that humans are simply part of nature, the hostility to attempts to control nature, the idea that nature should somehow be endowed with rights and the notion of eco-systems services.
Last night I watched the 11th Hour, a 2007 environmentalist documentary presented and produced by Leonardo DiCaprio, on Channel 4. The programme was predictably awful but at least it had the virtue of spelling out some of the misanthropic (and often absurd) premises of environmentalist thought. For example, the view that humans are simply part of nature, the hostility to attempts to control nature, the idea that nature should somehow be endowed with rights and the notion of eco-systems services.
Labels: celebrities, environment, film, spiked
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Revisiting Chinese pollution
Last year the New York Times ran a series of articles on pollution in China entitled “Choking on growth”. Today Nicholas Kristof, a regular Times columnist, has a comment headlined “Where breathing is deadly”. No prizes for guessing which country he was talking about.
Kristof refers to one of the earlier articles which estimates that between 300,000 and 400,000 Chinese die prematurely every year as a result of pollution. These estimates could well be accurate but, as is often the case with statistics, they can be misleading in isolation. No doubt a rugged statistical model could be constructed to show that many millions of Chinese die every year as a result of poverty. If China had living standards and infrastructure on the same level as the richest countries no doubt its people would live longer and healthier lives.
To be fair to Kristof he does add some balance to his article: “China has been better than most other countries in curbing pollution, paying attention to the environment at a much earlier stage of development than the United States, Europe or Japan. Most impressive, in 2004, China embraced tighter fuel economy standards than the Bush administration was willing to accept at the time.”
Kristof refers to one of the earlier articles which estimates that between 300,000 and 400,000 Chinese die prematurely every year as a result of pollution. These estimates could well be accurate but, as is often the case with statistics, they can be misleading in isolation. No doubt a rugged statistical model could be constructed to show that many millions of Chinese die every year as a result of poverty. If China had living standards and infrastructure on the same level as the richest countries no doubt its people would live longer and healthier lives.
To be fair to Kristof he does add some balance to his article: “China has been better than most other countries in curbing pollution, paying attention to the environment at a much earlier stage of development than the United States, Europe or Japan. Most impressive, in 2004, China embraced tighter fuel economy standards than the Bush administration was willing to accept at the time.”
Labels: china, development, environment
Rethinking poverty measures
This week’s Economist includes a discussion (subscription required) of the World Bank’s $1 a day poverty line – its official measure of absolute poverty. However, the World Bank is rethinking this measure, which first emerged in the 1990 World Development Report, as it does not take into account relative deprivation. Evidently two new working papers (Dollar a day revisited and China is poorer than we thought) from the World Bank suggest a new poverty line of $1.25. The Economist concludes:
“For practical purposes, policymakers will always care more about their own national poverty lines than the bank's global standard. The dollar-a-day line is more of a campaigning tool than a guide to policy. And as a slogan, $1.25 just doesn't have the same ring to it. A better option might be to reset the poverty line at $1 in 2005 PPP, which would line up reasonably well with at least ten countries in the authors' sample. In adding a quarter to the dollar-a-day poverty line, the researchers may cut its popular appeal by half.”
As it happens such measures are generally arbitrary. But, in the absence of better data, they give some indication of trends in poverty and inequality.
“For practical purposes, policymakers will always care more about their own national poverty lines than the bank's global standard. The dollar-a-day line is more of a campaigning tool than a guide to policy. And as a slogan, $1.25 just doesn't have the same ring to it. A better option might be to reset the poverty line at $1 in 2005 PPP, which would line up reasonably well with at least ten countries in the authors' sample. In adding a quarter to the dollar-a-day poverty line, the researchers may cut its popular appeal by half.”
As it happens such measures are generally arbitrary. But, in the absence of better data, they give some indication of trends in poverty and inequality.
Labels: china, development, economics, inequality
Friday, May 23, 2008
Pragmatic support for growth?
A leader in today’s Financial Times includes a useful summary of the just published Growth Report from the Commission on Growth and Development:
“The “Washington Consensus” – stabilise, privatise and liberalise – is dead. Long live the new pragmatism. That is the message of “the growth report” released this week by the commission on growth and development chaired by the Nobel laureate, Michael Spence.
“No single recipe will secure sustained and rapid economic growth in poor countries, it argues. Governments have to choose from a variety of ingredients. Yet only governments can do so. They “are sometimes clumsy and sometimes errant”, but “active, pragmatic governments” are indispensable.
“This pragmatism is one of the two principal contributions of this report. The other is its focus on growth itself. This is not to suggest that growth alone matters. But without it sustained improvements in human welfare are impossible: one cannot redistribute nothing. The report forces us to refocus attention on this overriding goal.”
I suspect the support for growth is more qualified than the comment suggests. However, since most of the commission’s members are developing country policymakers it is likely to be more pro-growth than if it was composed mainly of Westerners.
“The “Washington Consensus” – stabilise, privatise and liberalise – is dead. Long live the new pragmatism. That is the message of “the growth report” released this week by the commission on growth and development chaired by the Nobel laureate, Michael Spence.
“No single recipe will secure sustained and rapid economic growth in poor countries, it argues. Governments have to choose from a variety of ingredients. Yet only governments can do so. They “are sometimes clumsy and sometimes errant”, but “active, pragmatic governments” are indispensable.
“This pragmatism is one of the two principal contributions of this report. The other is its focus on growth itself. This is not to suggest that growth alone matters. But without it sustained improvements in human welfare are impossible: one cannot redistribute nothing. The report forces us to refocus attention on this overriding goal.”
I suspect the support for growth is more qualified than the comment suggests. However, since most of the commission’s members are developing country policymakers it is likely to be more pro-growth than if it was composed mainly of Westerners.
Labels: development, economics, growth
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Earthquake protection demands growth
Will Hutton, writing in his regular Observer column on Sunday, was quick to blame corruption for the devastation caused by the recent Chinese earthquake. He associated this in turn with rapid economic growth:
“Corruption is ubiquitous, which is why so many buildings were deathtraps. Another woman drew attention to the government and party buildings that remained standing, plainly built to the right specifications. The Politburo could anticipate what was going to be said; fast, open and effective action was its best riposte.
“The government has announced an investigation into why so many classrooms collapsed, but the answer is already known. People want the government to maintain the pace of development but increasingly do not accept that the price has to be corruption. The government agrees and launches unsuccessful anti-corruption drives.”
What Hutton fails to even acknowledge is that building earthquake resistant buildings is expensive. That is why rich countries generally suffer less damage in earthquakes then poorer ones. In that sense rapid economic growth is a precondition for China being able to afford them. Hutton is so hostile to growth and so suspicious of the Chinese he does not even appear to recognise this basic fact.
“Corruption is ubiquitous, which is why so many buildings were deathtraps. Another woman drew attention to the government and party buildings that remained standing, plainly built to the right specifications. The Politburo could anticipate what was going to be said; fast, open and effective action was its best riposte.
“The government has announced an investigation into why so many classrooms collapsed, but the answer is already known. People want the government to maintain the pace of development but increasingly do not accept that the price has to be corruption. The government agrees and launches unsuccessful anti-corruption drives.”
What Hutton fails to even acknowledge is that building earthquake resistant buildings is expensive. That is why rich countries generally suffer less damage in earthquakes then poorer ones. In that sense rapid economic growth is a precondition for China being able to afford them. Hutton is so hostile to growth and so suspicious of the Chinese he does not even appear to recognise this basic fact.
Labels: china, corruption, development
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Success and happiness
Arthur Brooks, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and author of Gross National Happiness (Basic Books), argues in an article in the May / June issue of The American that it is success rather than money that brings happiness. For Brooks money is important simply as an indirect measure of success.
For Brooks this explains why entrepreneurs continue to work so hard even after amassing large fortunes. It also shows why “easy money”, such as that gained by winning the lottery, does not bring happiness.
For Brooks this explains why entrepreneurs continue to work so hard even after amassing large fortunes. It also shows why “easy money”, such as that gained by winning the lottery, does not bring happiness.
Labels: happiness
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Against global cool
I am hardly a regular reader of Marie Claire but I was struck by how its June eco-chic edition managed to combine environmentalism, beauty and celebrity. Amid the adverts for brands such as D&G, Estee Lauder and Clinique are Cate Blanchett endorsing Marie Claire’s campaign to stop global warming, profiles of Hollywood stars turned eco-campaigners (including Gwyneth Paltrow, Jake Gyllenhaal and Julia Roberts) and an interview with Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall.
I was particularly amused by the “Message from our associates” at coolaworld:
“Just being cool is a beautifully simple way to save the planet”.
“Being cool means having a passionate relationship with the world around you, a growing awareness of where things come from and how they arrive. Being cool is shopping to save the planet, saying yes to tap water and no to excess packaging. Being cool is ‘Fashion without Heart’ and food without air miles and, because it helps you feel good about the environment, being cool will always be considered stylish and smart.”
If such self-obsession is considered “cool” then I’m all in favour of some warming.
I was particularly amused by the “Message from our associates” at coolaworld:
“Just being cool is a beautifully simple way to save the planet”.
“Being cool means having a passionate relationship with the world around you, a growing awareness of where things come from and how they arrive. Being cool is shopping to save the planet, saying yes to tap water and no to excess packaging. Being cool is ‘Fashion without Heart’ and food without air miles and, because it helps you feel good about the environment, being cool will always be considered stylish and smart.”
If such self-obsession is considered “cool” then I’m all in favour of some warming.
Labels: celebrities, consumption, environment, film, food
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Protection harms workers
It is becoming increasingly clear how mainstream concern for labour standards has become (see 6 May 2008 post). It used to be the case that radicals would typically support workers in their struggles against employers. Today self-appointed defenders of labour standards seek to protect employees against greedy companies. In the past it was about expressing solidarity for workers’ battles today it is primarily a case of using state institutions to defend employees as victims. The two notions could not be more different.
Two recent examples of how this works. The awful British fashion brats from BBC3’s Blood, Sweat and T-shirts (see 18 April 2008 post) appearing on Newsnight to talk about labour standards in the developing world. The group were at best gormless (wearing an £800 bracelet while working in an Indian cotton factory) and more often contemptuous of their Indian hosts. Yet they somehow have the moral authority to talk about Indian labour standards on a premier news programme.
A more perceptive piece by TA Frank, a former sweatshop inspector, appears in the April issue of Washington Monthly. Among other things it reminds readers that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have criticised trade deals as unfair to American workers while arguing for future agreements to have higher labour standards. It also makes the point that Robert Reich started cracking down on American sweatshop when he was labor secretary in the Clinton administration.
It is hard to think of many things more nauseating than protectionism masquerading as support for workers. Nor, as some of the Indian workers featured in Blood, Sweat and T-shirts pointed out, is it as simply as banning child labour in the developing world. The alternative for many child workers and their families is often extreme hardship and even starvation. The solution is economic development in the poorer countries. Child labour is rare when countries become rich.
Two recent examples of how this works. The awful British fashion brats from BBC3’s Blood, Sweat and T-shirts (see 18 April 2008 post) appearing on Newsnight to talk about labour standards in the developing world. The group were at best gormless (wearing an £800 bracelet while working in an Indian cotton factory) and more often contemptuous of their Indian hosts. Yet they somehow have the moral authority to talk about Indian labour standards on a premier news programme.
A more perceptive piece by TA Frank, a former sweatshop inspector, appears in the April issue of Washington Monthly. Among other things it reminds readers that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have criticised trade deals as unfair to American workers while arguing for future agreements to have higher labour standards. It also makes the point that Robert Reich started cracking down on American sweatshop when he was labor secretary in the Clinton administration.
It is hard to think of many things more nauseating than protectionism masquerading as support for workers. Nor, as some of the Indian workers featured in Blood, Sweat and T-shirts pointed out, is it as simply as banning child labour in the developing world. The alternative for many child workers and their families is often extreme hardship and even starvation. The solution is economic development in the poorer countries. Child labour is rare when countries become rich.
Labels: development, ethics, india, inequality, television
Monday, May 12, 2008
My take on rising food prices
There follows a comment by me on rising global food prices from the latest Fund Strategy magazine (12 May). It is linked to a longer cover story I wrote on the subject.
The world seems to be suffering from the delusion that there is a chronic shortage of food. Rising consumption of food in the developing world and the growing use of biofuels is said to be bolstering demand and therefore raising prices. Many fund groups are also harnessing such arguments to encourage investors to put money in their shiny new agriculture funds.
Problem is there is little basis to such arguments. As Daniel Ben-Ami shows in this week's cover story the rising demand for food inside, for example, China is largely met from rising productivity inside the country. Even America's Department of Agriculture concedes that China is largely self-sufficient in food. It is unlikely therefore that Chinese demand is pushing up prices on the world market.
Biofuels have played a role in pushing up prices in the short term but not in the way generally understood. The problem is not with the technology itself but with Western governments providing substantial subsidies to grossly inefficient forms of biofuel production. As a result the shortages created by biofuel demand need only be temporary.
The fundamental problem with food supply is low yields in sub-Saharan Africa and developing Asia. American yields are, on average, 10 times African levels and three times Asian levels. Yet if the developing world had access to the modern agricultural technology and economic infrastructure enjoyed in the West its yields could increase enormously. Other modern techniques, such as biotechnology, could bolster productivity still further. These have the advantage of being able to build such qualities as resistance to drought, pests and salt water into crops. They can also enhance the food value of agricultural produce.
In any case the spike in food prices cannot be explained in terms of long-term trends alone. Food prices have increased by 45% since the end of 2006 - hugely more than the increase in food consumption in developing countries over the same period.
It seems likely that short-term factors have played a key role in pushing up food prices over the recent period. These include a financial bubble as investors, nervous about market developments elsewhere, seek to make money from investing in agriculture. In this sense there is a resemblance between the surge in food prices and earlier bubbles in technology and housing.
Rising food prices should not be blamed on improving diets in developing countries.
The world seems to be suffering from the delusion that there is a chronic shortage of food. Rising consumption of food in the developing world and the growing use of biofuels is said to be bolstering demand and therefore raising prices. Many fund groups are also harnessing such arguments to encourage investors to put money in their shiny new agriculture funds.
Problem is there is little basis to such arguments. As Daniel Ben-Ami shows in this week's cover story the rising demand for food inside, for example, China is largely met from rising productivity inside the country. Even America's Department of Agriculture concedes that China is largely self-sufficient in food. It is unlikely therefore that Chinese demand is pushing up prices on the world market.
Biofuels have played a role in pushing up prices in the short term but not in the way generally understood. The problem is not with the technology itself but with Western governments providing substantial subsidies to grossly inefficient forms of biofuel production. As a result the shortages created by biofuel demand need only be temporary.
The fundamental problem with food supply is low yields in sub-Saharan Africa and developing Asia. American yields are, on average, 10 times African levels and three times Asian levels. Yet if the developing world had access to the modern agricultural technology and economic infrastructure enjoyed in the West its yields could increase enormously. Other modern techniques, such as biotechnology, could bolster productivity still further. These have the advantage of being able to build such qualities as resistance to drought, pests and salt water into crops. They can also enhance the food value of agricultural produce.
In any case the spike in food prices cannot be explained in terms of long-term trends alone. Food prices have increased by 45% since the end of 2006 - hugely more than the increase in food consumption in developing countries over the same period.
It seems likely that short-term factors have played a key role in pushing up food prices over the recent period. These include a financial bubble as investors, nervous about market developments elsewhere, seek to make money from investing in agriculture. In this sense there is a resemblance between the surge in food prices and earlier bubbles in technology and housing.
Rising food prices should not be blamed on improving diets in developing countries.
Labels: economics, food, Fund Strategy
Friday, May 09, 2008
Ramsay’s rant
Gordon Ramsay, probably Britain’s most annoying celebrity chef, has spoken to the prime minister about fining restaurants which serve out of season produce.
There are at least two things wrong with Ramsay’s proposal. First, why shouldn’t people be able to eat out of season food if they want to? If I want Kenyan strawberries in March I should have the freedom to buy them. It might satisfy my desire for strawberries and it could benefit the Kenyan economy too. No one is forced to buy such strawberries if they prefer local produce.
Second, just because someone doesn’t like something it doesn’t mean there should be a law against it. Such an attitude leads to gross intrusions on personal freedom. I detest Ramsay’s boorish and formulaic TV programmes but I have never campaigned for them to be banned.
There are at least two things wrong with Ramsay’s proposal. First, why shouldn’t people be able to eat out of season food if they want to? If I want Kenyan strawberries in March I should have the freedom to buy them. It might satisfy my desire for strawberries and it could benefit the Kenyan economy too. No one is forced to buy such strawberries if they prefer local produce.
Second, just because someone doesn’t like something it doesn’t mean there should be a law against it. Such an attitude leads to gross intrusions on personal freedom. I detest Ramsay’s boorish and formulaic TV programmes but I have never campaigned for them to be banned.
Labels: celebrities, consumption, food, trade
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Food wastage hysteria
The lead story of today’s Independent (London) is a hysterical rant about food wastage in Britain. It notes that:
“Each day, according to the government-backed report, Britons throw away 4.4 million apples, 1.6 million bananas, 1.3 million yoghurt pots, 660,000 eggs, 550,000 chickens, 300,000 packs of crisps and 440,000 ready meals.”
But to me the striking thing is that, in a population of 60m people, how little is wasted: “The roll call of daily waste costs an average home more than £420 a year but for a family with children the annual cost rises to £610”. But this means the average family with kids wastes less than £2 a day on food. Given the difficulty of matching food purchases to changing family circumstances this seems pretty efficient. A certain amount of food wastage is inevitable given the difficulties of matching individual purchases and consumption. Indeed it is desirable because it is symptomatic of living in a richer society.
It is worth noting that the government has played a role in whipping up such hysteria. The figures come from Waste & Resources Action Programme (Wrap), a government waste campaign.
In a related leader the Independent makes the correct point that it would be wrong to counterpose wasted food in Britain and food shortages in the developing world. But it immediately goes on to suggest such a moral link:
“Ordinary shoppers in Britain are not to blame for the rising price of food across the world. The fact that we are richer and consume more calories than vast swathes of humanity should not be a source of guilt. But in our increasingly connected and exploited world, there does exist a moral responsibility on all of us to consume resources responsibly and sustainably. And that includes food.”
“Each day, according to the government-backed report, Britons throw away 4.4 million apples, 1.6 million bananas, 1.3 million yoghurt pots, 660,000 eggs, 550,000 chickens, 300,000 packs of crisps and 440,000 ready meals.”
But to me the striking thing is that, in a population of 60m people, how little is wasted: “The roll call of daily waste costs an average home more than £420 a year but for a family with children the annual cost rises to £610”. But this means the average family with kids wastes less than £2 a day on food. Given the difficulty of matching food purchases to changing family circumstances this seems pretty efficient. A certain amount of food wastage is inevitable given the difficulties of matching individual purchases and consumption. Indeed it is desirable because it is symptomatic of living in a richer society.
It is worth noting that the government has played a role in whipping up such hysteria. The figures come from Waste & Resources Action Programme (Wrap), a government waste campaign.
In a related leader the Independent makes the correct point that it would be wrong to counterpose wasted food in Britain and food shortages in the developing world. But it immediately goes on to suggest such a moral link:
“Ordinary shoppers in Britain are not to blame for the rising price of food across the world. The fact that we are richer and consume more calories than vast swathes of humanity should not be a source of guilt. But in our increasingly connected and exploited world, there does exist a moral responsibility on all of us to consume resources responsibly and sustainably. And that includes food.”
Labels: consumption, ethics, food
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Globalisation and anti-globalisation
A column by Lawrence Summers, a former US treasury secretary, in today’s Financial Times shows how far the mainstream has gone in taking on “anti-globalisation” arguments. Tackling inequality and raising labour standards are integral to the conventional wisdom:
“The domestic component of a strategy to promote healthy globalisation must rely on strengthening efforts to reduce inequality and insecurity. The international component must focus on the interests of working people in all countries, in addition to the current emphasis on the priorities of global corporations.”
Yet, as I have argued elsewhere, this sentiment is not about raising the living standards of ordinary people. On the contrary, it is essentially a demand for greater social regulation to protect society against the alleged disintegrative effects of inequality. It can also be a form of protectionism against developing countries.
Dani Rodrik of Harvard also recognises the mainstream character of anti-globalisation thinking in his blog. He says that much of the Summers column could “have been written by, say, Robert Kuttner or Tom Palley”. He later complains about a student who pigenholes him as an anti-globaliser. The student’s retort was "[Joseph] Stiglitz doesn't think he is an anti-globalizer either."
“The domestic component of a strategy to promote healthy globalisation must rely on strengthening efforts to reduce inequality and insecurity. The international component must focus on the interests of working people in all countries, in addition to the current emphasis on the priorities of global corporations.”
Yet, as I have argued elsewhere, this sentiment is not about raising the living standards of ordinary people. On the contrary, it is essentially a demand for greater social regulation to protect society against the alleged disintegrative effects of inequality. It can also be a form of protectionism against developing countries.
Dani Rodrik of Harvard also recognises the mainstream character of anti-globalisation thinking in his blog. He says that much of the Summers column could “have been written by, say, Robert Kuttner or Tom Palley”. He later complains about a student who pigenholes him as an anti-globaliser. The student’s retort was "[Joseph] Stiglitz doesn't think he is an anti-globalizer either."
Labels: corporations, globalisation, inequality
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Catch-up
I have been sidetracked for the past week so no time for blogging. Hopefully this will now change. However, two things worth catching up on:
- Attended the launch of the Prix Pictet photographic competition last Tuesday (29 April). It is a new photographic awarded focusing on sustainability with Kofi Annan, a former UN secretary general, as its honorary president. It also has the endorsement of Gro Harlem Brundtland, a special envoy to the UN on climate change. This year’s theme is water.
The PR stunt at the start of the event gives some flavour of what it was about. All of those attending were given a clear glass bottle with a little water in it and the name of a country. Mine had a tag on it saying “Ghana” and a note saying the average daily domestic water consumption was 27 litres per head which was equivalent to five minutes in an ordinary shower. What is this bizarre counter-position meant to mean? Perhaps that by having a shower in Britain we are depriving ordinary Ghanaians of water? Or that water is a scarce resource? (see post of 12 March 2008).
- Michael Fitzpatrick wrote a pithy critique of the mainstream happiness discussion in an article (30 April) on spiked on the contemporary obsession with healthy living:
“Having replaced heaven (in either terrestrial or celestial forms) as the goal of human existence, health has been reduced to the anatomical and physiological functions of the human organism. The highest aspiration of the modern individual is biological survival, complemented by the state of bovine contentment celebrated as ‘happiness’ by government advisers, a condition to be achieved by making healthy lifestyle choices, appropriately corrected by short courses of cognitive behaviour therapy.
“For Aristotle a true state of health meant a ‘flourishing life’, not merely in terms of prolonging our bodily existence, but in terms of personal achievement. What matters is not merely feeling good about ourselves, but living and acting well. Happiness is the result of human activity in the world, it is not just a state of mind, and even less mere animal fitness.”
- Attended the launch of the Prix Pictet photographic competition last Tuesday (29 April). It is a new photographic awarded focusing on sustainability with Kofi Annan, a former UN secretary general, as its honorary president. It also has the endorsement of Gro Harlem Brundtland, a special envoy to the UN on climate change. This year’s theme is water.
The PR stunt at the start of the event gives some flavour of what it was about. All of those attending were given a clear glass bottle with a little water in it and the name of a country. Mine had a tag on it saying “Ghana” and a note saying the average daily domestic water consumption was 27 litres per head which was equivalent to five minutes in an ordinary shower. What is this bizarre counter-position meant to mean? Perhaps that by having a shower in Britain we are depriving ordinary Ghanaians of water? Or that water is a scarce resource? (see post of 12 March 2008).
- Michael Fitzpatrick wrote a pithy critique of the mainstream happiness discussion in an article (30 April) on spiked on the contemporary obsession with healthy living:
“Having replaced heaven (in either terrestrial or celestial forms) as the goal of human existence, health has been reduced to the anatomical and physiological functions of the human organism. The highest aspiration of the modern individual is biological survival, complemented by the state of bovine contentment celebrated as ‘happiness’ by government advisers, a condition to be achieved by making healthy lifestyle choices, appropriately corrected by short courses of cognitive behaviour therapy.
“For Aristotle a true state of health meant a ‘flourishing life’, not merely in terms of prolonging our bodily existence, but in terms of personal achievement. What matters is not merely feeling good about ourselves, but living and acting well. Happiness is the result of human activity in the world, it is not just a state of mind, and even less mere animal fitness.”
Labels: consumption, development, environment, happiness, sustainability
