Friday, January 02, 2009
Phoney ambition 2009
Andrew Simms, the policy director of the New Economics Foundation (NEF), provides a typical example of environmentalism’s phoney ambition in his New Year’s Day comment piece for Britain’s Guardian newspaper. In response to what he calls “climate upheaval” he urges readers to: “squeeze those eyes open to 2009, and history tells us great things are possible. We are still in control. We just need to build, rapidly, new energy and transport systems and change our behaviour.”
Simms is certainly right when he points to the great achievements of the Victorian engineers of the mid-nineteenth century. But their goal was to build huge amounts of railway track to enhance mobility. In contrast, he says in his article he wants to “get people out of their cars”. Although Simms says he supports cleaner transport as an alternative it is hard to avoid the conclusion that he is anti-mobility, or at least would like to see it restricted, given his opposition to cars along with the NEF’s emphasis on local communities. A similarly narrow attitude is apparent in the emphasis on renewable energy when more high technology sources are needed to provide the world with the energy it needs.
Simms is certainly right when he points to the great achievements of the Victorian engineers of the mid-nineteenth century. But their goal was to build huge amounts of railway track to enhance mobility. In contrast, he says in his article he wants to “get people out of their cars”. Although Simms says he supports cleaner transport as an alternative it is hard to avoid the conclusion that he is anti-mobility, or at least would like to see it restricted, given his opposition to cars along with the NEF’s emphasis on local communities. A similarly narrow attitude is apparent in the emphasis on renewable energy when more high technology sources are needed to provide the world with the energy it needs.
Labels: climate, economics, energy, environment, transport
Monday, December 22, 2008
Uplifting mortality statistics
Indur Goklany has written a cheery article for the Cato Institute on death from extreme weather events in America. Despite the grim nature of the subject the ultimate conclusion is uplifting:
* Extreme cold is responsible for about half the deaths from weather-related events - about twice as many as extreme heat.
* Extreme weather accounts for a tiny proportion of the annual American death toll.
* The trend over time is for extreme weather to be responsible for an ever smaller proportion of deaths. That is despite any tendency towards global warming.
The more humanity advances economically the less vulnerable it becomes to extreme weather.
* Extreme cold is responsible for about half the deaths from weather-related events - about twice as many as extreme heat.
* Extreme weather accounts for a tiny proportion of the annual American death toll.
* The trend over time is for extreme weather to be responsible for an ever smaller proportion of deaths. That is despite any tendency towards global warming.
The more humanity advances economically the less vulnerable it becomes to extreme weather.
Labels: climate, development, progress, technology
Friday, December 12, 2008
The growth sceptic mindset
A particularly interesting insight into the logic of growth scepticism from Philip Stephens, an associate editor of the Financial Times, in a piece in today’s newspaper entitled: “Global warming: the way not to mobilise the masses”.
He first acknowledges that anti-growth sentiment of the type favoured by protestors against Stansted airport is unlikely to win popular support”
“In this mindset saving the planet demands that people give up their foreign holidays, abandon their cars, turn down the heating and clean their teeth in the dark. Through this prism, pain is a virtue and the halting global warming metamorphoses into a much broader attack on consumerism, materialism and, at the extreme, anything that smacks of the market.
“Whatever one makes of the intent, such zealotry is doomed to failure. Self-flagellation does not sell. If keeping the planet cool is seen to be the project of affluent middle-class do-gooders the masses will mobilise all right – against it.”
The wording in the second paragraph should be carefully noted. He does not object to the intent of the protestors but simply the zealotry with which they publicise their case. Stevens favours putting the argument in a positive form:
`’The case must be framed as an opportunity rather than a burden. Technological innovation – in automobile design, energy efficiency, renewable energy and the rest – is more than a useful adjunct to an austere low carbon lifestyle. It is a vital pillar of any plan to reduce the build-up of CO2. Bluntly stated, unless we find a way to capture emissions from coal-fired power stations, the game will be lost.”
For him technological innovation - of a low horizons, low carbon kind - needs to accompany the austere low carbon lifestyle. They are not an alternative.
He first acknowledges that anti-growth sentiment of the type favoured by protestors against Stansted airport is unlikely to win popular support”
“In this mindset saving the planet demands that people give up their foreign holidays, abandon their cars, turn down the heating and clean their teeth in the dark. Through this prism, pain is a virtue and the halting global warming metamorphoses into a much broader attack on consumerism, materialism and, at the extreme, anything that smacks of the market.
“Whatever one makes of the intent, such zealotry is doomed to failure. Self-flagellation does not sell. If keeping the planet cool is seen to be the project of affluent middle-class do-gooders the masses will mobilise all right – against it.”
The wording in the second paragraph should be carefully noted. He does not object to the intent of the protestors but simply the zealotry with which they publicise their case. Stevens favours putting the argument in a positive form:
`’The case must be framed as an opportunity rather than a burden. Technological innovation – in automobile design, energy efficiency, renewable energy and the rest – is more than a useful adjunct to an austere low carbon lifestyle. It is a vital pillar of any plan to reduce the build-up of CO2. Bluntly stated, unless we find a way to capture emissions from coal-fired power stations, the game will be lost.”
For him technological innovation - of a low horizons, low carbon kind - needs to accompany the austere low carbon lifestyle. They are not an alternative.
Labels: climate, consumption, economics, environment, growth, technology
Thursday, December 11, 2008
A growth sceptic classic
Yesterday I went to the launch of the International Growth Centre at the London School of Economics (LSE). The international network of scholars is a joint venture between LSE and Oxford University with funding of £42m from Britain’s Department for International Development (DFID).
Superficially the tone was incredibly pro-growth. This was reflected in a DFID booklet (PDF) handed out at the event called Growth: Building Jobs and Prosperity in Developing Countries. It opens with the sentence: “Economic growth is the most powerful instrument for reducing poverty and improving the quality of life in developing countries”. Much of the rest of the text is in a similar vein.
However, numerous caveats to the initially upbeat assessment of growth are subtly introduced including:
* An emphasis on “poverty reduction” rather than all-rounded development.
* An emphasis on the importance of climate change.
* References to “environmental sustainability” and “low carbon” growth.
The whole approach is also technocratic. It emphasises “growth diagnostics” - experts identifying the barriers to growth - rather than mass participation in development. Although it discusses “ownership” of projects by third world nations this conception only seems to take in a narrow elite of government officials, business leaders and non-governmental organisations (“civil society”).
I also notice that Paul Collier, one of the directors of the centre and a speaker at yesterday’s event, has a forthcoming book, Wars, Guns and Votes (Bodley Head), out on development. It evidently extends his call for United Nations intervention in troubled areas (see 14 May 2007 post) - an initiative that can only make matters worse for the world’s poorest countries.
Superficially the tone was incredibly pro-growth. This was reflected in a DFID booklet (PDF) handed out at the event called Growth: Building Jobs and Prosperity in Developing Countries. It opens with the sentence: “Economic growth is the most powerful instrument for reducing poverty and improving the quality of life in developing countries”. Much of the rest of the text is in a similar vein.
However, numerous caveats to the initially upbeat assessment of growth are subtly introduced including:
* An emphasis on “poverty reduction” rather than all-rounded development.
* An emphasis on the importance of climate change.
* References to “environmental sustainability” and “low carbon” growth.
The whole approach is also technocratic. It emphasises “growth diagnostics” - experts identifying the barriers to growth - rather than mass participation in development. Although it discusses “ownership” of projects by third world nations this conception only seems to take in a narrow elite of government officials, business leaders and non-governmental organisations (“civil society”).
I also notice that Paul Collier, one of the directors of the centre and a speaker at yesterday’s event, has a forthcoming book, Wars, Guns and Votes (Bodley Head), out on development. It evidently extends his call for United Nations intervention in troubled areas (see 14 May 2007 post) - an initiative that can only make matters worse for the world’s poorest countries.
Labels: Africa, book, climate, development, economics, environment, growth
Friday, December 05, 2008
More Christmas crunchiness
I do not normally reproduce emails from public relations types but this one is so ludicrous and miserabilist (do not put up Christmas trees) that I cannot resist. It was sent to me in my capacity as a magazine editor:
Hi there,
I've got a great somewhat unusual environmentally friendly and ethical Christmas gift you may be able to do something on - forget about Christmas trees this year, why not buy your friends and loved ones their own personalised tree in the Scottish highlands to reduce carbon emmisions!
Each tree comes complete with a DVD of the site which featured in the BBC series 'The Real Monarch of the Glen' and you can even go and visit your personal tree if you want to!
I think this would make for a really quite interesting piece in the run up to Christmas and if you would like to chat with Geremy Thomas behind the scheme I can set that you for you. It would also be fantastic if you could mention the great work of the Caron Managers in any way and I think this would make for a truly memorable feature so let me know if you can do anything.
Merry Christmas and all the best,
Lauren
Lauren Horncastle
Senior Press Officer
Quite Great Communications
My terse response what that I might run it in our 1 April issue.
PS - The PR firm also seems to be suffering from a sense of humour bypass. It just replied to my sarcastic proposal saying: "that sounds great".
Hi there,
I've got a great somewhat unusual environmentally friendly and ethical Christmas gift you may be able to do something on - forget about Christmas trees this year, why not buy your friends and loved ones their own personalised tree in the Scottish highlands to reduce carbon emmisions!
Each tree comes complete with a DVD of the site which featured in the BBC series 'The Real Monarch of the Glen' and you can even go and visit your personal tree if you want to!
I think this would make for a really quite interesting piece in the run up to Christmas and if you would like to chat with Geremy Thomas behind the scheme I can set that you for you. It would also be fantastic if you could mention the great work of the Caron Managers in any way and I think this would make for a truly memorable feature so let me know if you can do anything.
Merry Christmas and all the best,
Lauren
Lauren Horncastle
Senior Press Officer
Quite Great Communications
My terse response what that I might run it in our 1 April issue.
PS - The PR firm also seems to be suffering from a sense of humour bypass. It just replied to my sarcastic proposal saying: "that sounds great".
Labels: climate, environment, ethics
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
FT on climate change economics
The Financial Times published the third in its series of special magazines on climate change yesterday (“in association with GE”). It dealt with business after earlier issues tackled science and politics.
Its most striking feature is its conventional character. Although climate change is often portrayed as a “right on” radical issue the daily business paper thoroughly endorses the mainstream view.
The magazine includes an interview with Lord Nicholas Stern - arguably the doyen of climate change economics. There is also a roundtable with a group of economists including Martin Wolf, Jeffrey Sachs and David Henderson (a rare critical voice). The debate can be heard here.
Its most striking feature is its conventional character. Although climate change is often portrayed as a “right on” radical issue the daily business paper thoroughly endorses the mainstream view.
The magazine includes an interview with Lord Nicholas Stern - arguably the doyen of climate change economics. There is also a roundtable with a group of economists including Martin Wolf, Jeffrey Sachs and David Henderson (a rare critical voice). The debate can be heard here.
Labels: climate, economics, environment
Monday, December 01, 2008
Britain’s unelected climate policeman
The Committee on Climate Change - the unelected body appointed by the British government to police climate change targets - has set its first carbon budget (see 23 November 2008 post). It has demanded that greenhouse emissions in 2020 should be 21% below their 2005 level.
Although the report evidently acknowledges that fuel will become more expensive the committee’s chairman, Lord Turner, argues it should not compromise lifestyles or the economy. I suspect this claim is open to question.
The committee’s actions can be objected to on two grounds. First, it is an unelected body. Key decisions are made by the so-called “great and the good” rather than elected politicians with a democratic mandate. Second, its actions are likely to have a damaging economic impact by increasing energy costs substantially.
Although the report evidently acknowledges that fuel will become more expensive the committee’s chairman, Lord Turner, argues it should not compromise lifestyles or the economy. I suspect this claim is open to question.
The committee’s actions can be objected to on two grounds. First, it is an unelected body. Key decisions are made by the so-called “great and the good” rather than elected politicians with a democratic mandate. Second, its actions are likely to have a damaging economic impact by increasing energy costs substantially.
Labels: climate, environment
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Insights from the Economist
A couple of particularly interesting pieces in this week’s Economist (22 November):
* An article on the creation of a Committee on Climate Change, chaired by the ubiquitous Adair Turner, modelled on the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee. In other words it will give Britain’s green pledges the force of law. They will be enforced by an unelected committee with no popular accountability.
* An economic focus on the relationship between economic growth and health. The piece looks at whether healthier populations lead to more economic growth rather than the other way round. Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. After a review of the discussion the Economist does not reach a definite conclusion but one passage is worth quoting:
“Beginning in the 1940s, several medical innovations involving penicillin, streptomycin and DDT made it easier to treat diseases—such as tuberculosis, malaria and yellow fever—that disproportionately affected people in developing countries. Because these ideas originated in the rich world and were spread by organisations such as the WHO, any improvements in health they led to would have been unconnected with prior improvements in the economic circumstances of poor countries.
“This international revolution in public health did lead to substantial increases in life expectancy in poor countries by the 1950s.”
To me this shows that economic growth, along with the associated development of technology, helps the poorer countries. This can happen even when the poorer countries do not become richer themselves – although of course it is better if they do.
* An article on the creation of a Committee on Climate Change, chaired by the ubiquitous Adair Turner, modelled on the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee. In other words it will give Britain’s green pledges the force of law. They will be enforced by an unelected committee with no popular accountability.
* An economic focus on the relationship between economic growth and health. The piece looks at whether healthier populations lead to more economic growth rather than the other way round. Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. After a review of the discussion the Economist does not reach a definite conclusion but one passage is worth quoting:
“Beginning in the 1940s, several medical innovations involving penicillin, streptomycin and DDT made it easier to treat diseases—such as tuberculosis, malaria and yellow fever—that disproportionately affected people in developing countries. Because these ideas originated in the rich world and were spread by organisations such as the WHO, any improvements in health they led to would have been unconnected with prior improvements in the economic circumstances of poor countries.
“This international revolution in public health did lead to substantial increases in life expectancy in poor countries by the 1950s.”
To me this shows that economic growth, along with the associated development of technology, helps the poorer countries. This can happen even when the poorer countries do not become richer themselves – although of course it is better if they do.
Labels: climate, development, economics, health
Support for a "green new deal"?
An article in the Christian Science Monitor (19 November) on how an opinion poll in 21 countries shows support for more use of renewable energy sources even if it means higher prices in the short term. It talks favourably of President-elect Barack Obama’s plans to create jobs through the development of “clean technology” as well as the idea of a “green new deal”.
It is probably not yet clear to people that such a plan will mean substantially higher energy prices and the imposition of austerity.
It is probably not yet clear to people that such a plan will mean substantially higher energy prices and the imposition of austerity.
Labels: America, climate, economics, energy, environment, work
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Yet more Green New Dealers.
Evidently an influential group of American business leaders is also backing what is essentially part of the “Green New Deal”. It believes that cutting carbon emissions can be combined with investment in new technology and infrastructure to create jobs and revenue.
The US Climate Action Partnership includes: Alcoa, AIG, Boston Scientific, BP America, Caterpillar, ConocoPhillips, Chrysler, John Deere, Dow, Duke Energy, DuPont, Environmental Defense Fund, Exelon, Ford, FPL Group, GE, GM, Johnson & Johnson, Marsh, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, The Nature Conservancy, PepsiCo, PG&E, PNM Resources, Rio Tinto, Shell, Siemens, World Resources Institute and Xerox.
The US Climate Action Partnership includes: Alcoa, AIG, Boston Scientific, BP America, Caterpillar, ConocoPhillips, Chrysler, John Deere, Dow, Duke Energy, DuPont, Environmental Defense Fund, Exelon, Ford, FPL Group, GE, GM, Johnson & Johnson, Marsh, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, The Nature Conservancy, PepsiCo, PG&E, PNM Resources, Rio Tinto, Shell, Siemens, World Resources Institute and Xerox.
Labels: America, climate, economics, environment
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Taking geoengineering seriously
Scientific American has an extensive feature on geoengineering in its November issue including references for further study. It looks at such possible technologies as injecting sulphur dioxide into the upper stratosphere, spraying seawater in the troposphere and building huge “blinds” in space to act as a sunshade. At least the magazine takes the discussion seriously although a related editorial ends by coming out against the technology on several grounds: the danger of side effects, cost and the false sense of security it would engender.
To me there is much room for further investigation and debate.
To me there is much room for further investigation and debate.
Labels: climate, environment, geo-engineering, science, technology
Friday, November 14, 2008
Rock sucks up carbon
Given the hysteria around climate change it might be expected that the news of a rock that absorbs vast quantities of carbon dioxide should get more publicity, According to a story in the Economist (15 November):
“There is … a rock that is happy to gobble it up, and according to the latest research its appetite for the greenhouse gas is not only massive but could also be increased by a little human intervention.
“The rock is peridotite, which is one of the main rocks in the upper mantle, an area that provides a girth below the Earth’s crust. The rock occurs some 20km or more down, although in areas where plate tectonics have forced up some of the mantle, peridotite reaches the surface.”
Then again perhaps the hysteria-mongers are not interested in solutions. They just want to give moralising lectures about how we should run our lives.
“There is … a rock that is happy to gobble it up, and according to the latest research its appetite for the greenhouse gas is not only massive but could also be increased by a little human intervention.
“The rock is peridotite, which is one of the main rocks in the upper mantle, an area that provides a girth below the Earth’s crust. The rock occurs some 20km or more down, although in areas where plate tectonics have forced up some of the mantle, peridotite reaches the surface.”
Then again perhaps the hysteria-mongers are not interested in solutions. They just want to give moralising lectures about how we should run our lives.
Labels: climate, environment, technology
Friday, November 07, 2008
Needed: critique of green recovery
The idea of a “green new deal” or “green recovery” is in desperate need of a critique. Such initiatives generally involve combining a shift to a low carbon economy with more “green collar” jobs. Proponents include the Center for American Progress, Britain’s New Economics Foundation and the United Nations Environment Programme. I do not have time to produce such a critique at present but the sooner one is done the better.
Labels: climate, economics, energy, environment
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Whatever happened to David Bellamy?
Anyone brought up in Britain and above the age of about 25 is likely to remember David Bellamy. The TV botanist, with his bushy beard and distinctive way of speaking, made frequent appearances in the media till about a decade ago. Then he mysteriously disappeared.
An interview in today’s Daily Express seems to explain his disappearance. Bellamy says he has been barred because of his rejection of the idea of anthropogenic global warming. Given the extreme hostility to anyone expressing such views his claim is probably true. Even though he was a big name celebrity and remains conservative in many respects his views are considered unacceptable. It is an indictment of the censorious time we live in.
An interview in today’s Daily Express seems to explain his disappearance. Bellamy says he has been barred because of his rejection of the idea of anthropogenic global warming. Given the extreme hostility to anyone expressing such views his claim is probably true. Even though he was a big name celebrity and remains conservative in many respects his views are considered unacceptable. It is an indictment of the censorious time we live in.
Labels: celebrities, climate, environment
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Apocalyptic climate change exhibition in New York
The New York Times has a scary article on the new climate change exhibition at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. The Times argues that the exhibition is catastrophist in its tone:
“There are real issues to be considered here — questions about probabilities, alternative technologies, industrial evolution, relationships between developed and undeveloped nations — but they are never really explored. The main impression, instead, is of an almost religious urgency. ‘Repent!’ these displays seem to call out, ‘Repent! Before it’s too late!’.”
The article also includes a useful reference to a piece by Freeman Dyson in the New York Review of Books. Dyson sees environmentalism as a “worldwide secular religion” – although for him its rise in a welcome development.
The climate change exhibition is due to go to St Louis, Cleveland and Chicago, as well as Denmark, the United Arab Emirates, Spain, South Korea and Mexico.
“There are real issues to be considered here — questions about probabilities, alternative technologies, industrial evolution, relationships between developed and undeveloped nations — but they are never really explored. The main impression, instead, is of an almost religious urgency. ‘Repent!’ these displays seem to call out, ‘Repent! Before it’s too late!’.”
The article also includes a useful reference to a piece by Freeman Dyson in the New York Review of Books. Dyson sees environmentalism as a “worldwide secular religion” – although for him its rise in a welcome development.
The climate change exhibition is due to go to St Louis, Cleveland and Chicago, as well as Denmark, the United Arab Emirates, Spain, South Korea and Mexico.
Labels: America, apocalyptic, climate, environment, technology
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Dumbing down development
The recent Oxfam International paper on Climate Wrongs and Human Rights is a classic example of how an apparently ambitious approach to development has curtailed ambitions. It looks at climate change as violating basic human rights such as the right to life and security, the right to food, the right to subsistence and the right to health. In effect what it is doing is redefining development as survival. It uses the term “rights” in a promiscuous way to mean basic needs. I suspect that also, by introducing the threat of litigation in relation to climate change, it will increase anxiety about pursuing economic growth.
Labels: climate, development
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Environmentalist shift on climate change
The Economist (11 September) notes a significant shift in the environmentalist attitude towards climate change. Rather than just pushing mitigation they are also promoting adaptation as a complement to it. To quote the opening paragraph of the article:
“‘I used to think adaptation subtracted from our efforts on prevention. But I’ve changed my mind,’ says Al Gore, a former American vice-president and Nobel prize-winner. ‘Poor countries are vulnerable and need our help.’ His words reflect a shift in the priorities of environmentalists and economists.”
The magazine attributes this shift to two factors: evidence that climate change is happening more quickly than previously expected and that the more marginal groups in the world will be hit harder by the trend.
As this blog has already noted it is also clear that many environmentalists are increasingly looking to geo-engineering (see posts of 22 July 2008, 31 July 2008 and 5 September 2008).
Unfortunately all these shifts seem to be driven by a panic reaction to climate change. Few are challenging the implicit assumption that we need to curb consumption growth to deal with the problem.
Even the concept of “mitigation” is problematic. It lumps together measures which are essentially about rationing (such as striving to use less energy in the home) with the development of new or less carbon generating technology (such as atomic power, hydroelectric power, nuclear fusion and more fuel efficient technologies).
“‘I used to think adaptation subtracted from our efforts on prevention. But I’ve changed my mind,’ says Al Gore, a former American vice-president and Nobel prize-winner. ‘Poor countries are vulnerable and need our help.’ His words reflect a shift in the priorities of environmentalists and economists.”
The magazine attributes this shift to two factors: evidence that climate change is happening more quickly than previously expected and that the more marginal groups in the world will be hit harder by the trend.
As this blog has already noted it is also clear that many environmentalists are increasingly looking to geo-engineering (see posts of 22 July 2008, 31 July 2008 and 5 September 2008).
Unfortunately all these shifts seem to be driven by a panic reaction to climate change. Few are challenging the implicit assumption that we need to curb consumption growth to deal with the problem.
Even the concept of “mitigation” is problematic. It lumps together measures which are essentially about rationing (such as striving to use less energy in the home) with the development of new or less carbon generating technology (such as atomic power, hydroelectric power, nuclear fusion and more fuel efficient technologies).
Labels: climate, environment, geo-engineering
Monday, September 08, 2008
Fossil fuels vital to future development
The following comment by me appeared in this week’s Fund Strategy.
It seems virtually all politicians want to present themselves as enemies of "big oil". It is a pity they have forgotten the huge benefits of fossil fuels.
One of the less noticed passages of Gordon Brown's speech to the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland last week was his desire to "set a new ambition to free Britain from the dictatorship of oil".
Exactly how a physical substance can impose a dictatorship over people he did not explain. Rights are normally curtailed by governments, such as his own, rather than by chemicals. But he is far from alone in his hostility to oil.
Al Gore, the former American vice-president turned environmental campaigner, told the Democratic National Convention in Denver on August 28 that America needed presidential leadership to solve the climate crisis. He is also supporting a campaign demanding "electricity 100% clean within 10 years" (www.wecansolveit.org). Obviously, the term "clean" is open to interpretation but Gore made no secret of his distaste for "big oil and coal" in his speech.
Nor is criticism of oil interests restricted to those who might vaguely be defined as on the left. On the Republican side the new vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, is portrayed by her opponents as a supporter of big oil. But she presents herself as a populist critic of corporate interests.
Few seem willing to put the case that fossil fuel has brought enormous benefits to humanity and, if allowed, is likely to continue to do so. It is a relatively cheap and highly flexible form of energy. That is why the International Energy Agency estimates it is likely to account for 84% of the overall increase in energy demand from 2005-2030. Without oil the world economy would not have grown nearly as fast over the past century.
Although Brown and others offer alternatives, their claims to be able to replace fossil fuel bear little relationship to reality. Brown supports more investment in renewables and atomic power - which is fine in principle - but on nowhere near the scale needed to meet future energy needs. And, contrary to the common misconception, greater energy efficiency is likely to lead to more energy consumption rather than less.
One-sided attacks on oil do not help promote a considered debate on the future of energy.
It seems virtually all politicians want to present themselves as enemies of "big oil". It is a pity they have forgotten the huge benefits of fossil fuels.
One of the less noticed passages of Gordon Brown's speech to the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland last week was his desire to "set a new ambition to free Britain from the dictatorship of oil".
Exactly how a physical substance can impose a dictatorship over people he did not explain. Rights are normally curtailed by governments, such as his own, rather than by chemicals. But he is far from alone in his hostility to oil.
Al Gore, the former American vice-president turned environmental campaigner, told the Democratic National Convention in Denver on August 28 that America needed presidential leadership to solve the climate crisis. He is also supporting a campaign demanding "electricity 100% clean within 10 years" (www.wecansolveit.org). Obviously, the term "clean" is open to interpretation but Gore made no secret of his distaste for "big oil and coal" in his speech.
Nor is criticism of oil interests restricted to those who might vaguely be defined as on the left. On the Republican side the new vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, is portrayed by her opponents as a supporter of big oil. But she presents herself as a populist critic of corporate interests.
Few seem willing to put the case that fossil fuel has brought enormous benefits to humanity and, if allowed, is likely to continue to do so. It is a relatively cheap and highly flexible form of energy. That is why the International Energy Agency estimates it is likely to account for 84% of the overall increase in energy demand from 2005-2030. Without oil the world economy would not have grown nearly as fast over the past century.
Although Brown and others offer alternatives, their claims to be able to replace fossil fuel bear little relationship to reality. Brown supports more investment in renewables and atomic power - which is fine in principle - but on nowhere near the scale needed to meet future energy needs. And, contrary to the common misconception, greater energy efficiency is likely to lead to more energy consumption rather than less.
One-sided attacks on oil do not help promote a considered debate on the future of energy.
Labels: America, climate, development, economics, energy, Fund Strategy
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Brookings initiative on development
The Brookings Institution, a think tank based in Washington DC, is organising interesting-sounding events and publications on development. These include an event on how the world’s poor can deal with climate change and a book on Global Development 2.0 including a look at the new philanthropists. The latter looks at how: “The fight against global poverty has quickly become one of the hottest tickets on the global agenda—with rock stars, world leaders, and multibillionaires calling attention to the plight of the poor at international confabs such as the World Economic Forum and the Clinton Global Initiative.”
Labels: celebrities, climate, development
Climate leader attacks meat consumption
The lead story in today’s Observer quotes Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, argues that people should reduce their meat consumption to help quell global warming. There are several obvious things wrong with this demand. In no particular order:
• It is an intrusion into individuals’ personal freedom. It should not be up to the authorities to tell people what to eat.
• It is an attack on Western living standards. It helps set a precedent that people should be prepared to do with less.
• It is an attack on development. Everyone should have access to the best the world has to offer – including meat.
• It is a meaningless gesture. The idea that such token gestures can do anything about climate change is ridiculous. On the contrary, by focusing on our individual behaviour it encourages a climate of narcissism rather than the broad thinking need to tackle the problems facing humanity.
• It is an intrusion into individuals’ personal freedom. It should not be up to the authorities to tell people what to eat.
• It is an attack on Western living standards. It helps set a precedent that people should be prepared to do with less.
• It is an attack on development. Everyone should have access to the best the world has to offer – including meat.
• It is a meaningless gesture. The idea that such token gestures can do anything about climate change is ridiculous. On the contrary, by focusing on our individual behaviour it encourages a climate of narcissism rather than the broad thinking need to tackle the problems facing humanity.
Labels: climate, consumption, environment, food
Monday, August 25, 2008
Upgraded links
I have added to and updated the list of useful links on the left hand bar at the side of this site. New links include China Digital Daily, Climate Debate Daily, Culture Wars’ world development pages, the Future Cities Project and Indur Goklany’s papers. Any suggestions for further links or material for posts please email me HERE.
Labels: china, cities, climate, development, progress
Sunday, August 17, 2008
More of more-is-less
Miller-McCune magazine, a publication from the Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media and Public Policy in California, has a useful review essay by David Villano on the “more-is-less” thesis. In other words it examines (sympathetically) the argument that it is possible to be more prosperous while consuming less.
Many of the points it makes are familiar – Americans consume far more per head than most of the rest of the world, the threat of climate change is imminent, the need to change lifestyles etc – but it includes many useful references. Among them are Confronting Consumption, (MIT Press) a 2002 book on America’s consumer society co-edited by Michael Maniates. Others include the California-based Global Footprint Network, the Voluntary Simplicity Movement, Redefining Progress and Mean Genes, a book on how our desire to consume is embedded in our DNA.
Many of the points it makes are familiar – Americans consume far more per head than most of the rest of the world, the threat of climate change is imminent, the need to change lifestyles etc – but it includes many useful references. Among them are Confronting Consumption, (MIT Press) a 2002 book on America’s consumer society co-edited by Michael Maniates. Others include the California-based Global Footprint Network, the Voluntary Simplicity Movement, Redefining Progress and Mean Genes, a book on how our desire to consume is embedded in our DNA.
Labels: affluenza, America, book, climate, consumption, environment, footprint, inequality, progress, review, sustainability
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
An antidote to Gore
Not Evil Just Wrong, an anti-environmentalist documentary by two Irish film-makers, sounds interesting. From an account in the Sunday Times (London) it sounds like a much needed antidote to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.
Labels: climate, environment, film
Saturday, August 09, 2008
Review essay on climate change
Today’s Guardian has an unashamedly one-sided review essay by Tim Flannery (Australian academic, climate change activist and author of The Weather Makers), of books on climate change. Among those authors recommended in the piece are works by Al Gore (Earth in the Balance), Mark Lynas (Six Degrees), George Marshall (Carbon Detox) and Oliver Tickell (Kyoto2). The review concentrates on British writers but American authors mentioned include Keith Bradsher (High and Mighty - an interesting sounding book on SUVs), Ross Gelbspan (Boiling Point), William McDonough (Cradle to Cradle), Bill McKibben and Gus Speth. Bjorn Lomborg, a leading sceptic on climate change, is mentioned in a few sentences but disparagingly dismissed.
One telling sentence in the article: “Few books about climate change have been written by the meteorologists and atmospheric physicists that dominate the field”. So even in relation to the science of climate change – as opposed to the politics or economics – there are few popular books written by experts. Pro-environmentalist non-specialists seem to dominate the popular debate.
In relation to the economics of climate change the Stern Review and William Nordhaus (A Question of Balance) are mentioned.
One telling sentence in the article: “Few books about climate change have been written by the meteorologists and atmospheric physicists that dominate the field”. So even in relation to the science of climate change – as opposed to the politics or economics – there are few popular books written by experts. Pro-environmentalist non-specialists seem to dominate the popular debate.
In relation to the economics of climate change the Stern Review and William Nordhaus (A Question of Balance) are mentioned.
Labels: book, climate, consumption, economics, environment, review, science
Monday, August 04, 2008
The credit crunch as the new climate change
The following comment by me appeared in this week’s Fund Strategy.
Has anyone noticed that the credit crunch is the new climate change?
Until about a year ago, we were being advised to take such measures as reducing energy consumption, not wasting food and being financially frugal to save the planet. Now we are being told to do more-or-less the same thing for the sake of our household finances in the midst of recession. It seems that austerity is in the air.
The most stomach-churning expressions of this trend are the self-appointed experts who dispense their banal advice at every opportunity. They tell us how much money we can save by making packed lunches to eat at work or making sure we do not leave our televisions on standby. Such trite observations are routinely indulged by the media.
But such measures are also backed by government and business. The government sponsors reports such as those on how much food is wasted and promotes regulations to discourage the use of plastic bags. A Scrooge-like attitude to consumption is being encouraged at every opportunity.
This is all pretty strange because the credit crunch and climate change are two fundamentally different types of problem. The former is a relatively muted economic slowdown driven by difficulties on the consumption side of the economy (see last week's comment). The latter is a long-term trend towards an increase in average global temperatures.
If the two have anything in common, it is more in the reaction to them than what they are. Both seem to be prompting a panic reaction that is out of proportion to the immediate threat.
In both cases, the reaction emphasises the need for people to behave "responsibly" and curb their consumption. At best, such measures are irrelevant. At worst, they encourage a small-mindedness that detracts from finding a solution to the problems that they are ostensibly supposed to tackle.
In the case of the economy the challenge in broad terms is to find new ways to promote economic growth and encourage a culture of genuine innovation. In relation to climate change, it is to develop new technology and to work out the best way to adapt to the challenge.
Looking at either problem from the narrow perspective of the individual consumer only mystifies what is going on. We need a broader vision if we are to move forward with confidence.
Has anyone noticed that the credit crunch is the new climate change?
Until about a year ago, we were being advised to take such measures as reducing energy consumption, not wasting food and being financially frugal to save the planet. Now we are being told to do more-or-less the same thing for the sake of our household finances in the midst of recession. It seems that austerity is in the air.
The most stomach-churning expressions of this trend are the self-appointed experts who dispense their banal advice at every opportunity. They tell us how much money we can save by making packed lunches to eat at work or making sure we do not leave our televisions on standby. Such trite observations are routinely indulged by the media.
But such measures are also backed by government and business. The government sponsors reports such as those on how much food is wasted and promotes regulations to discourage the use of plastic bags. A Scrooge-like attitude to consumption is being encouraged at every opportunity.
This is all pretty strange because the credit crunch and climate change are two fundamentally different types of problem. The former is a relatively muted economic slowdown driven by difficulties on the consumption side of the economy (see last week's comment). The latter is a long-term trend towards an increase in average global temperatures.
If the two have anything in common, it is more in the reaction to them than what they are. Both seem to be prompting a panic reaction that is out of proportion to the immediate threat.
In both cases, the reaction emphasises the need for people to behave "responsibly" and curb their consumption. At best, such measures are irrelevant. At worst, they encourage a small-mindedness that detracts from finding a solution to the problems that they are ostensibly supposed to tackle.
In the case of the economy the challenge in broad terms is to find new ways to promote economic growth and encourage a culture of genuine innovation. In relation to climate change, it is to develop new technology and to work out the best way to adapt to the challenge.
Looking at either problem from the narrow perspective of the individual consumer only mystifies what is going on. We need a broader vision if we are to move forward with confidence.
Labels: climate, consumption, economics, finance, Fund Strategy
Thursday, July 31, 2008
BBC Analysis on geo-engineering
This week’s BBC Radio 4 Analysis programme, presented by Frances Cairncross, included the most detailed popular discussion of geo-engineering I have come across so far. In broad terms three possible techniques were identified:
• Removing carbon dioxide from the oceans.
• Removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
• Using lenses or mirrors to divert sunlight from the planet.
However, the discussion is still wracked with anxiety. On the one hand, some are arguing that things are getting so bad that geo-engineering might be necessary despite the possibility of damaging unintended consequences. On the other hand, others are worried that discussing geo-engineering could shift the discussion away from decarbonisation. An added worry seems to be that developing countries such as China and India – those that most need great increases in energy supply - could take a lead in developing the technology.
It is a pity there cannot be a more confident, forward-looking debate.
• Removing carbon dioxide from the oceans.
• Removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
• Using lenses or mirrors to divert sunlight from the planet.
However, the discussion is still wracked with anxiety. On the one hand, some are arguing that things are getting so bad that geo-engineering might be necessary despite the possibility of damaging unintended consequences. On the other hand, others are worried that discussing geo-engineering could shift the discussion away from decarbonisation. An added worry seems to be that developing countries such as China and India – those that most need great increases in energy supply - could take a lead in developing the technology.
It is a pity there cannot be a more confident, forward-looking debate.
Labels: climate, environment, geo-engineering, radio, science
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Mistaken assumptions on climate change
Burn-up, BBC 2’s big budget eco-thriller on the oil companies and runaway climate change, was awful in every way: as a drama, politically and in relation to the science. Rob Johnston on spiked has written an incisive review but it is worth outlining the key misconceptions embodied in the drama as they are common in the green mindset:
* It is assumed that there is no question that runaway warming (not just climate change) is happening. Catastrophe is imminent. A worst case scenario is presented as indisputable fact.
* Corporations are driven by greed in their ruthless pursuit of oil. In this sense attacks on capitalism are moral (it is driven by bad people) rather than linked to the pursuit of profit in itself. Companies and the economy are “addicted” to oil. (Insurance companies are a partial exception as they are suffering big losses as a result of climate change).
* The role of corporate lobbyists is to shed doubt on “the science”. They play the pernicious role of generating uncertainty and may engage in “greenwash” to improve their clients’ images.
* Deep down America knows that climate change is bad but it should help further its drive for global domination.
* Britain is on the right side but ineffectual.
* China is duplicitous – playing America against Europe to further its own interests,
* The only way to deal with climate change is to cut emissions. Adaptation is hardly discussed at all let along geo-engineering.
Sadly such mistaken views are widely held in the climate change debate.
* It is assumed that there is no question that runaway warming (not just climate change) is happening. Catastrophe is imminent. A worst case scenario is presented as indisputable fact.
* Corporations are driven by greed in their ruthless pursuit of oil. In this sense attacks on capitalism are moral (it is driven by bad people) rather than linked to the pursuit of profit in itself. Companies and the economy are “addicted” to oil. (Insurance companies are a partial exception as they are suffering big losses as a result of climate change).
* The role of corporate lobbyists is to shed doubt on “the science”. They play the pernicious role of generating uncertainty and may engage in “greenwash” to improve their clients’ images.
* Deep down America knows that climate change is bad but it should help further its drive for global domination.
* Britain is on the right side but ineffectual.
* China is duplicitous – playing America against Europe to further its own interests,
* The only way to deal with climate change is to cut emissions. Adaptation is hardly discussed at all let along geo-engineering.
Sadly such mistaken views are widely held in the climate change debate.
Labels: climate, environment, review, science, spiked, television
A Green New Deal?
The New Economics Foundation is promoting a Green New Deal which it analogous to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s response to the Great Depression of the 1930s. Andrew Simms has also written about it on the BBC website.
Just some of the things wrong with it include:
• The assumption that the world is facing an economic crisis comparable to the Great Depression. I will publish a post on this tomorrow.
• The assumption there is only 100 months to act to deal with runaway climate change.
• The idea that the world is facing a problem of “peak oil”. More on this soon but I am coming to the conclusion that the key driver of surging prices is the lack of investment in energy supply.
• The idea that the problem to energy shortages lies in curbing demand rather than bolstering supply.
• The notion that there is any direct link between environmental problems and the financial crisis.
• The argument that financial problems are undermining the economy. This confuses cause and effect.
Just some of the things wrong with it include:
• The assumption that the world is facing an economic crisis comparable to the Great Depression. I will publish a post on this tomorrow.
• The assumption there is only 100 months to act to deal with runaway climate change.
• The idea that the world is facing a problem of “peak oil”. More on this soon but I am coming to the conclusion that the key driver of surging prices is the lack of investment in energy supply.
• The idea that the problem to energy shortages lies in curbing demand rather than bolstering supply.
• The notion that there is any direct link between environmental problems and the financial crisis.
• The argument that financial problems are undermining the economy. This confuses cause and effect.
Labels: climate, consumption, economics, energy, finance
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Geo-engineering gaining interest
Evidently geo-engineering - using high technology solutions to modify the climate - is gaining interest according to a feature in the Christian Science Monitor (16 July):
“Launch myriad mirrors into space to deflect a fraction of sunlight from reaching Earth. Seed the stratosphere with sulfur or other particles to cut some of the sun’s rays. Bioengineer trees to soak up huge amounts of carbon dioxide from the air. Scatter unmanned self-powered ships to roam the world’s oceans funneling sea spray high in the sky to help form protective clouds.”
Unfortunately the move seems more motivated by pessimism about other solutions than optimism about human ingenuity or the power of technology.
“Launch myriad mirrors into space to deflect a fraction of sunlight from reaching Earth. Seed the stratosphere with sulfur or other particles to cut some of the sun’s rays. Bioengineer trees to soak up huge amounts of carbon dioxide from the air. Scatter unmanned self-powered ships to roam the world’s oceans funneling sea spray high in the sky to help form protective clouds.”
Unfortunately the move seems more motivated by pessimism about other solutions than optimism about human ingenuity or the power of technology.
Labels: climate, environment, geo-engineering
Monday, July 14, 2008
Need to rethink climate change
The following comment by me appeared in today’s issue of Fund Strategy:
On the face of it, the dispute about climate change at last week's G8 summit in Hokkaido seems childish. The world's richest countries put pressure on large developing countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions. In response, the emerging economies argued that the richer nations, with their far higher emissions per head and greater affluence, should bear most of the burden.
Although the two sides agreed on a declaration on energy security and climate change, it was limited to the vaguest and most long-term goals. Greenhouse emissions will be halved by mid-century. By the time 2050 is reached the present summit leaders are likely to be long gone. Gordon Brown will be 101.
Environmentalists - who admittedly are prone to panic - view such prevarication as madness. For them the world's leaders are squabbling while the planet is on the brink of catastrophe.
But there is a better way to understand the dispute between the developed and developing world in relation to climate change. That is to see it as a reflection of the tension between the practical need for economic growth and the elevation of climate change as a moral obsession.
In practical terms the developed world and, particularly, the developing world need economic growth. Such growth provides the basis for raising living standards, which in turn help to provide legitimacy to the governments which succeed in promoting growth.
But at the same time climate change has come to be viewed as a moral absolute. Anyone who questions the idea that the world is facing climate change catastrophe - not just that the climate is changing - risks being branded a "denier". The echoes of the derogatory term "holocaust denial" are unmistakable.
Yet it is far from settled that the world is on the brink of a catastrophe. The term "tipping point", often the basis for such discussions, is rooted in sociology rather than natural science (in 1950s studies of American race relations). Popular discussion often seems more concerned with proclaiming faith than examining the problem and suggesting solutions.
The difficulty is that the common notion that economic restraint is needed to tackle climate change clashes with the need for growth. When the debate is posed in this way it is always likely to be polarised.
The way the relationship between economic growth and climate change is understood needs to be reconsidered.
On the face of it, the dispute about climate change at last week's G8 summit in Hokkaido seems childish. The world's richest countries put pressure on large developing countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions. In response, the emerging economies argued that the richer nations, with their far higher emissions per head and greater affluence, should bear most of the burden.
Although the two sides agreed on a declaration on energy security and climate change, it was limited to the vaguest and most long-term goals. Greenhouse emissions will be halved by mid-century. By the time 2050 is reached the present summit leaders are likely to be long gone. Gordon Brown will be 101.
Environmentalists - who admittedly are prone to panic - view such prevarication as madness. For them the world's leaders are squabbling while the planet is on the brink of catastrophe.
But there is a better way to understand the dispute between the developed and developing world in relation to climate change. That is to see it as a reflection of the tension between the practical need for economic growth and the elevation of climate change as a moral obsession.
In practical terms the developed world and, particularly, the developing world need economic growth. Such growth provides the basis for raising living standards, which in turn help to provide legitimacy to the governments which succeed in promoting growth.
But at the same time climate change has come to be viewed as a moral absolute. Anyone who questions the idea that the world is facing climate change catastrophe - not just that the climate is changing - risks being branded a "denier". The echoes of the derogatory term "holocaust denial" are unmistakable.
Yet it is far from settled that the world is on the brink of a catastrophe. The term "tipping point", often the basis for such discussions, is rooted in sociology rather than natural science (in 1950s studies of American race relations). Popular discussion often seems more concerned with proclaiming faith than examining the problem and suggesting solutions.
The difficulty is that the common notion that economic restraint is needed to tackle climate change clashes with the need for growth. When the debate is posed in this way it is always likely to be polarised.
The way the relationship between economic growth and climate change is understood needs to be reconsidered.
Labels: climate, economics, environment, Fund Strategy
Friday, June 27, 2008
American pundit joins China bashers
Evidently Fareed Zakaria, one of America’s most influential commentators on international relations, expresses concern about the impact of China’s economic growth on the global environment in his new book. Although he welcomes poverty reduction in China he is concerned that rapid growth will lead to such problems as climate change and water shortages. According to Sean Collins writing in the latest spiked review of books:
“In viewing growth as problematic and potentially destructive, Zakaria raises a common theme of our time. Rather than celebrate the benefits of growth, such as a reduction in poverty, Zakaria and others emphasise the downsides that accompany development. This gloomy outlook reveals more about the commentator than the reality on the ground. Zakaria refers to the predicted increase in the number of cars in China from 26million to 120million in 2020 as an environmental problem rather than a cause of celebration, as the Chinese people gain greater freedom of movement. In doing so, Zakaria joins in with today’s growing China-bashing chorus.”
“In viewing growth as problematic and potentially destructive, Zakaria raises a common theme of our time. Rather than celebrate the benefits of growth, such as a reduction in poverty, Zakaria and others emphasise the downsides that accompany development. This gloomy outlook reveals more about the commentator than the reality on the ground. Zakaria refers to the predicted increase in the number of cars in China from 26million to 120million in 2020 as an environmental problem rather than a cause of celebration, as the Chinese people gain greater freedom of movement. In doing so, Zakaria joins in with today’s growing China-bashing chorus.”
Labels: America, climate, environment, review, spiked
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Ethics and economics of climate change
The May edition of Scientific American includes a useful primer on the ethics and economics of climate change by John Broome. It includes references to further discussion of the subject by the likes of William Nordhaus, the IPCC and Nicholas Stern. The New York Review of Books (12 June) has also recently carried an article by Freeman Dyson that touches on similar themes.
Personally I do not see the emphasis on potential conflicts of interest between present and future generations as useful. It seems to me the best we can do for future generations is to encourage as much development as possible.
Personally I do not see the emphasis on potential conflicts of interest between present and future generations as useful. It seems to me the best we can do for future generations is to encourage as much development as possible.
Labels: climate, economics, environment, ethics
Sunday, April 13, 2008
BBC Analysis on climate change
I have belatedly discovered a BBC Radio 4 Analysis programme, presented by Kenan Malik, on climate change. The programme, broadcast earlier this month, also included James Woudhuysen.
Labels: climate, environment
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Plane stupendous
The newly opened airport in Beijing looks amazing. Its architects evidently describe it as “the biggest building on the world”.
A comparison with London’s Heathrow airport is instructive. According to an article on the BBC website :
“Beijing's terminal is twice the size and about half the cost of Heathrow's new Terminal Five, which is due to open next month.
“Beijing has got from start to finish in four years. Heathrow has taken nearly 20.”
The BBC tries to soften the comparison by pointing out that the Chinese authorities, unlike those in Britain, do not have to engage in a lengthy consultation exercises.
But there is nothing democratic about such exercises. The slowness is more a symptom of Britain’s lack of dynamism and culture of excessive caution.
It is also sad that the small band of reactionaries who are campaigning against Heathrow’s third runway after often viewed so sympathetically. They should have the right to protest but their cause is entirely backward-looking.
A comparison with London’s Heathrow airport is instructive. According to an article on the BBC website :
“Beijing's terminal is twice the size and about half the cost of Heathrow's new Terminal Five, which is due to open next month.
“Beijing has got from start to finish in four years. Heathrow has taken nearly 20.”
The BBC tries to soften the comparison by pointing out that the Chinese authorities, unlike those in Britain, do not have to engage in a lengthy consultation exercises.
But there is nothing democratic about such exercises. The slowness is more a symptom of Britain’s lack of dynamism and culture of excessive caution.
It is also sad that the small band of reactionaries who are campaigning against Heathrow’s third runway after often viewed so sympathetically. They should have the right to protest but their cause is entirely backward-looking.
Labels: china, climate, development, progress
Monday, February 25, 2008
Valuable climate change site
A valuable new website on climate change. Climate Debate Daily brings to gether key articles on the subject from, broadly speaking, two opposing perspectives. One column includes articles demanding “calls to action” - generally in favour of the mainstream consensus - while another provides links to “dissenting voices”. There are also numerousl links to both mainstream and sceptical sites. Denis Dutton, who also runs Arts & Letters Daily, is co-managing the site with Doug Campbell.
Labels: climate, environment
Friday, October 26, 2007
Alarmist report from United Nations
The Global Environment Report (GEO-4) published by the United Nations Environment Programme gives a gloomy view of the outlook for the environment. The report self-consciously refers to the Brundtland Report (Our Common Future) of 20 years ago. It also says there is a need “to correct the technology-centred development paradigm”. I do not have time at present to do a critique of the report but it is certainly important to do at some point.
Labels: climate, consumption, development, environment, inequality
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
World Bank development notes
The World Bank has updated the development notes on its website. They give a useful summary of the current orthodoxy on topics such as aid, climate change and development, equitable growth, governance and trade policy.
Labels: aid, climate, development, economics, trade
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Sin Tracker: patio heaters
Monitoring the alleged sins of modern life
A new evil is stalking the land. The Energy Saving Trust (EST), a body founded by and partly financed by the government, has decided it does not like patio heaters. Its chief executive, Philip Sellwood, is quoted in an EST press release as suggesting that people should wear a jumper instead. He is also trying to discourage shops from selling them.
According to an article on BBC online the campaign is having some success: “Wyevale Garden Centres and Marks and Spencer have stopped stocking them, and the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone has urged others to follow.”
So not only are we being encouraged to curb our drinking, eating and smoking but we are being asked to sit in the cold instead. But surely Sellwood does not go far enough according to his own logic. Manufacturing jumpers no doubt also creates carbon emissions. So perhaps we should all be prepared to sit outside naked in mid-winter? Or maybe we should give up socialising all together and stay indoors, on our own, with a low fat, organically produced ready meal?
A new evil is stalking the land. The Energy Saving Trust (EST), a body founded by and partly financed by the government, has decided it does not like patio heaters. Its chief executive, Philip Sellwood, is quoted in an EST press release as suggesting that people should wear a jumper instead. He is also trying to discourage shops from selling them.
According to an article on BBC online the campaign is having some success: “Wyevale Garden Centres and Marks and Spencer have stopped stocking them, and the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone has urged others to follow.”
So not only are we being encouraged to curb our drinking, eating and smoking but we are being asked to sit in the cold instead. But surely Sellwood does not go far enough according to his own logic. Manufacturing jumpers no doubt also creates carbon emissions. So perhaps we should all be prepared to sit outside naked in mid-winter? Or maybe we should give up socialising all together and stay indoors, on our own, with a low fat, organically produced ready meal?
Labels: climate, environment, sin tracker
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Independent scared of development
The Independent is scared of economic development.
Yesterday the newspaper ran a classic Malthusian scare story on its front cover about how food prices were rising while supplies were falling. It said one of the main factors behind this trend towards “agflation” (agricultural inflation) is the “growing affluence of millions of people in China and India is creating a surge in demand for food - the rising populations are not content with their parents' diet and demand more meat.” The other factor it identified was the increasing use of agricultural crops as a source for biofuels rather than food.
The Independent did a poor job of putting recent food prices rises into context. Although food prices have risen recently the long-term trend is for them to fall. To be fair the article did conceded that: “Sixty years ago an average British family spent more than one-third of its income on food. Today, that figure has dropped to one-tenth.”
On Friday it ran an article on what it saw as the threat of relatively cheap cars becoming available in India. Apart from congestion the inevitable threat of climate change was raised.
It is a tiny step from expressing such fears about development to outright hostility. If the Independent’s perspective is accepted then it makes sense to try to limit development.
The alternative is to welcome economic development as it brings better lives to literally billions of people. It also brings with it a better chance of tackling such problems as insufficiently high agricultural productivity and climate change. After all, the experience of the two centuries since Malthus shows that his pessimistic outlook grossly underestimates human ingenuity.
Yesterday the newspaper ran a classic Malthusian scare story on its front cover about how food prices were rising while supplies were falling. It said one of the main factors behind this trend towards “agflation” (agricultural inflation) is the “growing affluence of millions of people in China and India is creating a surge in demand for food - the rising populations are not content with their parents' diet and demand more meat.” The other factor it identified was the increasing use of agricultural crops as a source for biofuels rather than food.
The Independent did a poor job of putting recent food prices rises into context. Although food prices have risen recently the long-term trend is for them to fall. To be fair the article did conceded that: “Sixty years ago an average British family spent more than one-third of its income on food. Today, that figure has dropped to one-tenth.”
On Friday it ran an article on what it saw as the threat of relatively cheap cars becoming available in India. Apart from congestion the inevitable threat of climate change was raised.
It is a tiny step from expressing such fears about development to outright hostility. If the Independent’s perspective is accepted then it makes sense to try to limit development.
The alternative is to welcome economic development as it brings better lives to literally billions of people. It also brings with it a better chance of tackling such problems as insufficiently high agricultural productivity and climate change. After all, the experience of the two centuries since Malthus shows that his pessimistic outlook grossly underestimates human ingenuity.
Labels: china, climate, consumption, development, environment, food, india, Malthus
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Environmentalists debate rationing
A debate between two leading growth sceptics in New Left Review on how best to tackle climate change. Clive Hamilton, a leading Australian environmentalist, attacks George Monbiot for, among other things, over-emphasising moral exhortation: “At times Monbiot is drawn into the most dangerous trap for environmentalists, the recourse to holier-than-thou moralizing.” Instead Hamilton argues that: “Insisting on a collective response to a collective problem is far more politically practical and environmentally responsible than a politics of guilt.”
Monbiot replies that, if anything, there needs to be moral emphasis on moral exhortation: “Is it true that I over-emphasize people’s failure to do more to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions? I think, if anything, I understate it.” He goes on to conceded – judiciously covering his own back – that: “We are all stinking hypocrites”.
What this really seems to represent is a debate about the best way to achieve rationing. Hamilton implies the state must play a direct role – presumably this is what he means by “a collective response” – while Monbiot stresses the need for individual moral exhortation. It is a debate about tactics and emphasis rather than principles. Both of them are hinting at what they see as need for drastic cuts in the standard of living of the developed world.
Monbiot replies that, if anything, there needs to be moral emphasis on moral exhortation: “Is it true that I over-emphasize people’s failure to do more to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions? I think, if anything, I understate it.” He goes on to conceded – judiciously covering his own back – that: “We are all stinking hypocrites”.
What this really seems to represent is a debate about the best way to achieve rationing. Hamilton implies the state must play a direct role – presumably this is what he means by “a collective response” – while Monbiot stresses the need for individual moral exhortation. It is a debate about tactics and emphasis rather than principles. Both of them are hinting at what they see as need for drastic cuts in the standard of living of the developed world.
Labels: climate, environment
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Economist on business and climate change
This week’s Economist (2 June issue) includes a 15-page report on how business is tackling climate change. The main issue’s lead comment piece argues that a pre-condition for effective action is for governments to put a price on carbon emissions. That way, the magazine argues, business investment in clean energy technology is likely to flourish.
What the magazine misses is the importance of challenging the idea of collective restraint. What we need is far more growth and much better technology. That way humanity will be in a better position to tackle any challenges thrown at it.
What the magazine misses is the importance of challenging the idea of collective restraint. What we need is far more growth and much better technology. That way humanity will be in a better position to tackle any challenges thrown at it.
Labels: climate, economics, environment
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Comment on carbon markets
There follows my attempt to grapple with the complex subject of carbon markets in Monday’s Fund Strategy.
Last week's Financial Times investigation into carbon markets raised fundamental questions in an area where the City hopes to become world leader. They go beyond whether manipulation is taking place.
The FT says there are many examples of "carbon credit" projects yielding few if any environmental benefits. Credits are often worthless and do not lead to reductions in carbon emissions. Many companies profit from doing little. And companies as well as individuals are often charged excessively for European Union (EU) carbon credits.
Two factors seem to be behind such alleged malpractices. First, governments have made available a gross oversupply of permits in the official EU market. Wholesale prices for permits have plunged as a result. Second, many of the companies involved in the carbon offset market have minimal expertise and their activity is often unverified.
Such malpractices should not come as a surprise. In the climate of extreme moral righteousness over global warming many people are so desperate to demonstrate environmental credentials they are ripe for manipulation. In addition, the "markets" for carbon trading are not really markets at all. They are the artificial creations of governments that control how many permits are issued.
The problem at the heart of so-called carbon markets is their acceptance of the polluter pays principle. Although this principle has a superficial appeal - individuals or companies should pay for their pollution - it is divisive and damages innovation.
While it is true that industry, for example, can create environmental costs it also generates huge social benefits. Carbon markets create a way of levying a charge on companies for such costs. Yet there is no equivalent mechanism for paying them for the non-commercial benefits that result from their business.
As a result companies have an incentive to be cautious about innovation. New products or production processes will incur environmental costs. Therefore companies hold back on innovations that could have enormous social benefits.
The costs of pollution should be borne by society as a whole rather than individual firms. Since we all benefit from economic activity the costs of dealing with pollution should be managed collectively.
Carbon trading embodies a principle that is divisive and damages innovation. In addition, it is open to manipulation and involves creating "markets" that are entirely artificial.
Last week's Financial Times investigation into carbon markets raised fundamental questions in an area where the City hopes to become world leader. They go beyond whether manipulation is taking place.
The FT says there are many examples of "carbon credit" projects yielding few if any environmental benefits. Credits are often worthless and do not lead to reductions in carbon emissions. Many companies profit from doing little. And companies as well as individuals are often charged excessively for European Union (EU) carbon credits.
Two factors seem to be behind such alleged malpractices. First, governments have made available a gross oversupply of permits in the official EU market. Wholesale prices for permits have plunged as a result. Second, many of the companies involved in the carbon offset market have minimal expertise and their activity is often unverified.
Such malpractices should not come as a surprise. In the climate of extreme moral righteousness over global warming many people are so desperate to demonstrate environmental credentials they are ripe for manipulation. In addition, the "markets" for carbon trading are not really markets at all. They are the artificial creations of governments that control how many permits are issued.
The problem at the heart of so-called carbon markets is their acceptance of the polluter pays principle. Although this principle has a superficial appeal - individuals or companies should pay for their pollution - it is divisive and damages innovation.
While it is true that industry, for example, can create environmental costs it also generates huge social benefits. Carbon markets create a way of levying a charge on companies for such costs. Yet there is no equivalent mechanism for paying them for the non-commercial benefits that result from their business.
As a result companies have an incentive to be cautious about innovation. New products or production processes will incur environmental costs. Therefore companies hold back on innovations that could have enormous social benefits.
The costs of pollution should be borne by society as a whole rather than individual firms. Since we all benefit from economic activity the costs of dealing with pollution should be managed collectively.
Carbon trading embodies a principle that is divisive and damages innovation. In addition, it is open to manipulation and involves creating "markets" that are entirely artificial.
Labels: climate, economics, energy, environment, Fund Strategy
Friday, April 20, 2007
Newsweek balanced on climate change
The current international edition of Newsweek (16 April) has an unusually balanced cover story on climate change for a mainstream publication. It points out that, other things being equal, there will be winners as well as losers as a result of global warming:
“Fairly or not, the tilt is destined to favor the countries of the rich North, to the detriment of the poorer South. Within a few decades or so, a balmy Greenland may again deserve its name.
“Russia, long a half-frozen terra incognita, will find its interior frontiers thrown wide open as the Siberian tundra turns to fertile prairie. Scorching heat and drought may devastate agriculture along the equator. The rain forests of the Amazon could be savanna by 2100, according to Brazilian researchers. The vast Sahara will grow ever larger. But America and other rich nations will be left relatively unscathed, because they are removed from equatorial regions that will be hardest hit, and wealthy enough to adapt.”
The newsmagazine also alludes to the possibility that the developing world could adapt to climate change if it has the necessary resources. “The problem is poverty, not climate,” it says. Even the most vulnerable countries, such as Bangladesh, can cope with climate change if they develop fast enough.
“Fairly or not, the tilt is destined to favor the countries of the rich North, to the detriment of the poorer South. Within a few decades or so, a balmy Greenland may again deserve its name.
“Russia, long a half-frozen terra incognita, will find its interior frontiers thrown wide open as the Siberian tundra turns to fertile prairie. Scorching heat and drought may devastate agriculture along the equator. The rain forests of the Amazon could be savanna by 2100, according to Brazilian researchers. The vast Sahara will grow ever larger. But America and other rich nations will be left relatively unscathed, because they are removed from equatorial regions that will be hardest hit, and wealthy enough to adapt.”
The newsmagazine also alludes to the possibility that the developing world could adapt to climate change if it has the necessary resources. “The problem is poverty, not climate,” it says. Even the most vulnerable countries, such as Bangladesh, can cope with climate change if they develop fast enough.
Labels: climate, environment
Monday, April 09, 2007
Another climate change report
Yet another report on climate change. The second of four to be issued this year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was published in Brussels on Friday. There is so much material on this topic I will not go into it in detail but it is worth noting the Christian Science Monitor has just launched a dedicated website on the subject.
It was also striking that a New York Times leader followed the example of Britain’s Stern Review in arguing there is a choice between doing nothing – or “denial” – and an approach centred on managing energy demand. The Times argued that following last week’s supreme court decision and the publication of the new IPCC report: “One would hope that these events would shake President Bush out of his state of denial and add his authority to the chorus of governors, legislators and business leaders calling for an aggressive regulatory and technological response to the dangers of global warming.” The idea that there might be other ways to tackle climate change, notably bolstering energy supply, is not even considered.
It was also striking that a New York Times leader followed the example of Britain’s Stern Review in arguing there is a choice between doing nothing – or “denial” – and an approach centred on managing energy demand. The Times argued that following last week’s supreme court decision and the publication of the new IPCC report: “One would hope that these events would shake President Bush out of his state of denial and add his authority to the chorus of governors, legislators and business leaders calling for an aggressive regulatory and technological response to the dangers of global warming.” The idea that there might be other ways to tackle climate change, notably bolstering energy supply, is not even considered.
Labels: America, climate, environment
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
US supreme court backs climate consensus
America’s supreme court ruled yesterday that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and the federal government has a right to regulate emissions. The New York Times welcomed the verdict saying:
“It is a victory for a world whose environment seems increasingly threatened by climate change. It is a vindication for states like California that chose not to wait for the federal government and acted to limit emissions that contribute to global warming. And it should feed the growing momentum on Capitol Hill for mandatory limits on carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas.”
In contrast the Wall Street Journal condemned what it called he “jolly green justices”:
“[I]sn't this something for Congress to decide? Global warming was already a hot topic in 1990, when Congress last amended the Clean Air Act. Yet it declined to enact amendments that would have forced the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] to set CO2 emissions standards. The Members have since been engaged in periodic brawls over whether and how to regulate CO2, but, voila, the High Court has now declared that it shall be so.”
In my view the Journal is closer to the truth. Political decisions on how to react to climate change should be a matter for political debate. Science is best left to the scientists. Leaving such decisions to judges is the worst possible outcome.
“It is a victory for a world whose environment seems increasingly threatened by climate change. It is a vindication for states like California that chose not to wait for the federal government and acted to limit emissions that contribute to global warming. And it should feed the growing momentum on Capitol Hill for mandatory limits on carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas.”
In contrast the Wall Street Journal condemned what it called he “jolly green justices”:
“[I]sn't this something for Congress to decide? Global warming was already a hot topic in 1990, when Congress last amended the Clean Air Act. Yet it declined to enact amendments that would have forced the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] to set CO2 emissions standards. The Members have since been engaged in periodic brawls over whether and how to regulate CO2, but, voila, the High Court has now declared that it shall be so.”
In my view the Journal is closer to the truth. Political decisions on how to react to climate change should be a matter for political debate. Science is best left to the scientists. Leaving such decisions to judges is the worst possible outcome.
Labels: America, climate, environment
Monday, April 02, 2007
American campuses go green
Sadly it seems that America’s college campuses are going green. According to an article in Business Week Bill McKibben, a prominent environmentalist, is spearheading a virtual march on Washington on 14 April called Step It Up. Over 1,100 campuses have signed up to the campaign to cut carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. The piece also draws a useful comparison with activism of the past:
“Unlike the Earth Day kids of the 1970s, climate activists who belong to the 80 million-strong demographic bulge known as the Millennials aren't hard left or anti-business. Sometimes called Gen Y (teens to mid-20s), they wield a tool kit that includes Excel spreadsheets, administrators' numbers on cell-phone speed dials, and blogs. And their ranks represent a wide swath of disciplines and beliefs, from the 3,000-member Engineers for a Sustainable World to the Evangelical Youth Climate Initiative to Net Impact, a green business school network with 130 chapters. Student groups at 570 schools signed up to take part this year in the Campus Climate Challenge, a campaign sponsored by 30 environmental groups.”
“Unlike the Earth Day kids of the 1970s, climate activists who belong to the 80 million-strong demographic bulge known as the Millennials aren't hard left or anti-business. Sometimes called Gen Y (teens to mid-20s), they wield a tool kit that includes Excel spreadsheets, administrators' numbers on cell-phone speed dials, and blogs. And their ranks represent a wide swath of disciplines and beliefs, from the 3,000-member Engineers for a Sustainable World to the Evangelical Youth Climate Initiative to Net Impact, a green business school network with 130 chapters. Student groups at 570 schools signed up to take part this year in the Campus Climate Challenge, a campaign sponsored by 30 environmental groups.”
Labels: America, climate, environment
Friday, March 23, 2007
Gore preaches to congress
Al Gore is stepping up his campaign to be recognised as the high priest of the anti climate change religion. In testimony to congress this week he reportedly said global warming was a “planetary emergency” and “the greatest crisis we’ve ever faced”. His proposed solutions included energy taxes and a total ban on the incandescent light bulb.
However, the criticism of him for hypocrisy is counter-productive. The personal electric bill for his Nashville mansion may be 20 times the national average but such arguments generally lead for a demand for consistency. That is the conclusion that is easily drawn is that everyone, including Gore, should cut back. A far better approach would be to accept that society as a whole could do with substantially more energy.
The Goracle’s testimony’s to congress can be viewed on Youtube here.
However, the criticism of him for hypocrisy is counter-productive. The personal electric bill for his Nashville mansion may be 20 times the national average but such arguments generally lead for a demand for consistency. That is the conclusion that is easily drawn is that everyone, including Gore, should cut back. A far better approach would be to accept that society as a whole could do with substantially more energy.
The Goracle’s testimony’s to congress can be viewed on Youtube here.
Labels: America, climate, environment
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Green policies lead to food riots in Mexico
The new edition of the Economist (17 March) points out that America’s anti-climate change policy has led to riots over the rising price of tortillas in Mexico. As it explains: “Green energy is fat with subsidies. America's ethanol subsidy, (which) has led to a huge rise in production, rocketing maize prices and consequent rioting in Mexico.” In other words George W Bush’s policy of subsidising ethanol production to supplement fossil fuels has in turn pushed up corn prices on the world market and Mexicans have suffered as a result. I would not share the Economist’s conclusion that the market always knows best. But it does show how apparently well meaning policies on climate change can have disastrous results.
Labels: America, climate, development, economics, environment, Latin America