Sunday, January 17, 2010
Showing farmers conquer nature
Jimmy’s Global Harvest is by far the most inspiring documentary series I have seen on British television recently. Jimmy Doherty, a farmer with a PhD in entomology, is concerned with the practical business of how farmers can boost productivity in adverse conditions (see 20 July 2008 and 30 November 2008 posts for his earlier television work). In essence it is about human ingenuity: showing how farmers can feed the world by overcoming problems such as extreme temperatures, poor soil and inadequate water supplies. So far programmes have focused on Australia and Brazil with American and another country (not yet revealed) on the way.
It its subtle way it is sticking two fingers up to the Malthusians.
It its subtle way it is sticking two fingers up to the Malthusians.
Labels: climate, food, Malthus, science, technology, television
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Artificial trees against climate change
After several critical posts some upbeat news. Der Spiegel profiles Klaus Lackner, a German geophysicist based at Columbia University, who is working on artificial trees that filter 1,000 times as much carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere as the real thing. The project is still at its prototype phase but if it worked well enough it could be an important tool in tackling climate change. It is simply one of several possible geo-engineering schemes which involve using high technology to modify the earth’s climate.
Labels: climate, geo-engineering, science, technology
Sunday, January 10, 2010
An inconvenient democracy
Nico Stehr and Hans von Storch, two German professors, argue on Roger Pielke Jr’s blog that supporters of the climate change orthodoxy are increasingly open in their attacks on democracy: “Within the broad field of climatology and climate policy one is able to discern growing concerns about the virtues of democracy. It is not just the deep divide between knowledge and action that is at issue, but it is an inconvenient democracy, which is identified as the culprit holding back action on climate change. As Mike Hulme has noted, it can be frustrating to learn that citizens have minds of their own.”
They highlight culprits in several countries:
* America. James Hansen, one of the most prominent American climate scientists, has argued "the democratic process does not work". Paul Krugman, a New York Times columnist, who argues failure to except climate change orthodoxy is nothing less than a betrayal of the planet. Thomas Friedman, a colleague of Krugman’s on the newspaper, who presents the authoritarian state of China as a model to be admired and perhaps copied for its green policies.
* Australia. David Shearman and Joseph Wayne Smith, two scholars, who argue openly in their book The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy that authoritarian government is needed to tackle the threat of climate change.
* Britain. James Lovelock, who emphasised in The Vanishing Face of Gaia, that we need to abandon democracy in order to meet the challenges of climate change.
* Germany. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, a German climate scientist, who argues we need a "great transformation" to a sustainable way of life.
An earlier version of the article appeared in German in Der Spiegel.
They highlight culprits in several countries:
* America. James Hansen, one of the most prominent American climate scientists, has argued "the democratic process does not work". Paul Krugman, a New York Times columnist, who argues failure to except climate change orthodoxy is nothing less than a betrayal of the planet. Thomas Friedman, a colleague of Krugman’s on the newspaper, who presents the authoritarian state of China as a model to be admired and perhaps copied for its green policies.
* Australia. David Shearman and Joseph Wayne Smith, two scholars, who argue openly in their book The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy that authoritarian government is needed to tackle the threat of climate change.
* Britain. James Lovelock, who emphasised in The Vanishing Face of Gaia, that we need to abandon democracy in order to meet the challenges of climate change.
* Germany. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, a German climate scientist, who argues we need a "great transformation" to a sustainable way of life.
An earlier version of the article appeared in German in Der Spiegel.
Labels: climate, environment
Monday, January 04, 2010
Avatar savaged
Bill Frezza, a partner at Adams Capital Management, has written a review on Real Clear Markets which is by far the most astute piece I have seen on Avatar. An extract from his article on James Cameron’s epic science fiction movie:
“I didn't see him in the credits but Al Gore, earth's first carbonless billionaire, must have been a script consultant. The arch villains are stick figure caricatures of greedy, baby-killing corporate capitalists. Unrepentant conquerors of nature, these amoral Halliburton proxies think nothing of shipping an army of mercenaries across interstellar space to plunder and pillage for profits. Do you think Cameron might still be suffering from a touch of Bush derangement syndrome?
“The heroes are pre-technological tribal environmentalists. They don't just hug trees, they worship them. Living loin-cloth lives in harmony with nature, they are content to follow the mystical ways of their shaman, whose beautiful daughter of course falls in love with a crippled marine seeking redemption. Money and technology mean as little to the natives as written language, leaving aside what Ralph Nader might have to say about their dangerous pterodactyl piloting. Try as they might the ugly Americans can't find anything to offer these noble savages in exchange for the valuable mineral deposits they're sitting on, not even universal health care. Despite technical marvels half a century ahead of ours, mining technology has somehow degenerated back to the open pit horrors of the past. The wise and selfless scientists who have fallen in love with the natives are powerless to stop the inevitable conflict. Cut loose the dogs of war - cue tanks, bulldozers, and bombs!”
“I didn't see him in the credits but Al Gore, earth's first carbonless billionaire, must have been a script consultant. The arch villains are stick figure caricatures of greedy, baby-killing corporate capitalists. Unrepentant conquerors of nature, these amoral Halliburton proxies think nothing of shipping an army of mercenaries across interstellar space to plunder and pillage for profits. Do you think Cameron might still be suffering from a touch of Bush derangement syndrome?
“The heroes are pre-technological tribal environmentalists. They don't just hug trees, they worship them. Living loin-cloth lives in harmony with nature, they are content to follow the mystical ways of their shaman, whose beautiful daughter of course falls in love with a crippled marine seeking redemption. Money and technology mean as little to the natives as written language, leaving aside what Ralph Nader might have to say about their dangerous pterodactyl piloting. Try as they might the ugly Americans can't find anything to offer these noble savages in exchange for the valuable mineral deposits they're sitting on, not even universal health care. Despite technical marvels half a century ahead of ours, mining technology has somehow degenerated back to the open pit horrors of the past. The wise and selfless scientists who have fallen in love with the natives are powerless to stop the inevitable conflict. Cut loose the dogs of war - cue tanks, bulldozers, and bombs!”
Labels: climate, environment, film
Friday, December 18, 2009
Elitism not hypocrisy
Attacks on the hypocrisy of delegates at the Copenhagen climate change summit are misplaced. It may well be true that they used 1,200 limos, 140 private and ate caviar wedges but to call them hypocrites fundamentally misunderstands the character of environmentalism.
Green thinking is essentially a defence of elite privilege. The elite see its own consumption as fine but popular consumption is viewed with revulsion. Members of the elite believe that they are entitled to their private jets (perhaps with carbon offsets as a form of absolution) but we should not even be flying in low cost airlines. This outlook is the essence of eco-thinking rather than being contradictory.
Green thinking is essentially a defence of elite privilege. The elite see its own consumption as fine but popular consumption is viewed with revulsion. Members of the elite believe that they are entitled to their private jets (perhaps with carbon offsets as a form of absolution) but we should not even be flying in low cost airlines. This outlook is the essence of eco-thinking rather than being contradictory.
Labels: climate, energy, ethics
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
The battle for humanity
George Monbiot’s column in yesterday’s Guardian at least had the virtue of drawing out what is too often implicit in the discussion of how to deal with climate change. The veteran environmental campaigner talked of a battle to redefine humanity:
“Humanity is no longer split between conservatives and liberals, reactionaries and progressives, though both sides are informed by the older politics. Today the battle lines are drawn between expanders and restrainers; those who believe that there should be no impediments and those who believe that we must live within limits. The vicious battles we have seen so far between greens and climate change deniers, road safety campaigners and speed freaks, real grassroots groups and corporate-sponsored astroturfers are just the beginning. This war will become much uglier as people kick against the limits that decency demands.”
Meanwhile, Anne Applebaum, writing in the Washington Post, did a good job of outlining the anti-human outlook of the climate change mainstream.
“Humanity is no longer split between conservatives and liberals, reactionaries and progressives, though both sides are informed by the older politics. Today the battle lines are drawn between expanders and restrainers; those who believe that there should be no impediments and those who believe that we must live within limits. The vicious battles we have seen so far between greens and climate change deniers, road safety campaigners and speed freaks, real grassroots groups and corporate-sponsored astroturfers are just the beginning. This war will become much uglier as people kick against the limits that decency demands.”
Meanwhile, Anne Applebaum, writing in the Washington Post, did a good job of outlining the anti-human outlook of the climate change mainstream.
Labels: climate, environment, ethics
Monday, December 14, 2009
Technology can tackle climate change
Bjørn Lomborg, writing in Finance & Development, argues that investment in technology, rather than cuts in carbon emissions, is the best way to tackle climate change.
Labels: climate, technology
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Against “rights” for the unborn
A characteristically cranky article in The Ecologist but one that points to a dangerous trend. It seems that increasing credence is being given to the supposed rights of the unborn and the related concept of inter-generational justice.
Of course the unborn are not in any position to exercise their rights. What this means in practice is that environmentalists could try to impose their views on society by claiming to act on behalf of the unborn. For example, evidently Ed Miliband, Britain’s energy and climate change minister, gave a lecture at the London School of Economics on 19 November where he argued: “We need to institutionalise long-term change that protects future generations”.
Such a view sets all sort of peculiar precedents. Perhaps the unborn black children who are the victims of the Optimum Population Trust’s Malthusian policies could counter-sue?
Of course the unborn are not in any position to exercise their rights. What this means in practice is that environmentalists could try to impose their views on society by claiming to act on behalf of the unborn. For example, evidently Ed Miliband, Britain’s energy and climate change minister, gave a lecture at the London School of Economics on 19 November where he argued: “We need to institutionalise long-term change that protects future generations”.
Such a view sets all sort of peculiar precedents. Perhaps the unborn black children who are the victims of the Optimum Population Trust’s Malthusian policies could counter-sue?
Labels: climate, environment, Malthus
Challenging climate change orthodoxy
An interesting cover story by Martin Cohen, an environmental activist and the editor of The Philosopher, in Times Higher Education challenging climate change orthodoxy. I do not agree with all of his arguments but the piece makes many astute points.
Labels: climate
Thursday, December 10, 2009
False prophet
Dennis Meadows, on of the authors of the landmark 1972 report on The Limits to Growth, tells Der Spiegel in an interview that personal sacrifice is the only way to tackle climate change: “I don't ask for it but I say if we don't change our behavior then we will be in serious trouble. People are getting sidetracked if they think that new green technology will solve all the problems. There is no magic button. It is about our lifestyles.” He also joins the Malthusians in calling for substantial cuts in the world’s population.
Given that the predictions in his 1972 book proved abysmally inaccurate his arguments probably should not be taken too seriously. However, that did not stop him from claiming they were “amazingly good”.
Given that the predictions in his 1972 book proved abysmally inaccurate his arguments probably should not be taken too seriously. However, that did not stop him from claiming they were “amazingly good”.
Labels: climate, consumption, environment, ethics, Malthus
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Miserable movies
The opening film to the Copenhagen summit, featuring a girl having a nightmare about catastrophic climate change, unwittingly reveals the pervasiveness of contemporary social pessimism. It assumes that our irresponsible actions today will cause devastating problems for our children in the future. The opposite possibility, that human action could improve our lives and those of our descendents, is not entertained.
Still it is probably not as bad as this evening’s BBC Horizon programme. It features David Attenborough, a veteran presenter of nature programmes, talking about human population. Given that he is a patron of the Optimum Population Trust it looks certain to take a Malthusian line.
Still it is probably not as bad as this evening’s BBC Horizon programme. It features David Attenborough, a veteran presenter of nature programmes, talking about human population. Given that he is a patron of the Optimum Population Trust it looks certain to take a Malthusian line.
Labels: climate, film, Malthus, science
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
German magazine backtracks on Obama
Der Spiegel, a leading German newsmagazine, has recanted three weeks after attacking Barack Obama’s record on climate change (see 17 November post). According to an editorial by Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff argues: “Obama has done all that a single person can possibly do. He has become the greenest president his country has ever seen.” However, it maintains more general criticisms of Americans including conservative unions and companies which see the burning of fossil fuels as key to profits.
Labels: America, climate, environment, Germany, Obama
Saturday, December 05, 2009
The climate change catechism
Fraser Nelson has a piece in the current Spectator which usefully delineates four different propositions on climate change:
“The truth about global warming is that the debate has many levels that can broadly be divided into four categories: 1) that global warming is happening; 2) that mankind is largely responsible; 3) that we are reaching a crunch point; and 4) that only a crash course of carbon reduction can avert it. All too often, the British press report people who believe — or reject — all four parts of this catechism. The debate is thus caricatured: shades of grey are airbrushed out.”
Gordon Brown implicitly lumps all these together when he condemns “behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics".
“The truth about global warming is that the debate has many levels that can broadly be divided into four categories: 1) that global warming is happening; 2) that mankind is largely responsible; 3) that we are reaching a crunch point; and 4) that only a crash course of carbon reduction can avert it. All too often, the British press report people who believe — or reject — all four parts of this catechism. The debate is thus caricatured: shades of grey are airbrushed out.”
Gordon Brown implicitly lumps all these together when he condemns “behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics".
Labels: climate
Thursday, December 03, 2009
Technology tackling climate change
Isabel Galiana and Christopher Green, economists at McGill University in Montreal, have an article in Nature arguing for a technological development as the best way to tackle climate change: “A technology-led approach can stabilize the climate with higher probability and much lower cost than the emissions-target approach”.
The two authors are part of the 2009 Copenhagen Consensus on Climate, in which a panel of leading economists ranked 15 policy responses to global warming.
The two authors are part of the 2009 Copenhagen Consensus on Climate, in which a panel of leading economists ranked 15 policy responses to global warming.
Labels: climate, geo-engineering, technology
Friday, November 27, 2009
The rise of a green bureaucracy
Josie Appleton has written a review for the spiked review of books which examines the creation of an artificial “carbon market”. She argues it involves the redistribution of resources to more stagnant economies and the creation of a vast green bureaucracy. The article focuses on the latest book by Nicholas Stern while also discussing work by Anthony Giddens and Mike Hulme.
Labels: book, climate, environment, review, spiked
Monday, November 23, 2009
Poor countries need fossil fuels
Nigel Lawson, a climate change sceptic and former British chancellor of the Exchequer (finance minister), has a comment piece in today’s Times (London) predicting the failure of the Copenhagen climate change summit. In it he makes the sensible point that the world’s poorer countries cannot afford to decarbonise their economies:
“Switching to much more expensive energy may be acceptable for us in the developed world. But in the developing world, there are still tens of millions of people suffering from acute poverty, and from the consequences of such poverty, in the shape of preventable disease, malnutrition and premature death. So for the developing world, the overriding priority has to be the fastest feasible rate of economic development, which means, inter alia, using the cheapest available form of energy: carbon-based energy.”
Lawson is also the chairman of the board of trustees of the Global Warming Policy Forum, a think tank that was launched today.
“Switching to much more expensive energy may be acceptable for us in the developed world. But in the developing world, there are still tens of millions of people suffering from acute poverty, and from the consequences of such poverty, in the shape of preventable disease, malnutrition and premature death. So for the developing world, the overriding priority has to be the fastest feasible rate of economic development, which means, inter alia, using the cheapest available form of energy: carbon-based energy.”
Lawson is also the chairman of the board of trustees of the Global Warming Policy Forum, a think tank that was launched today.
Labels: climate, development, energy
Thursday, November 19, 2009
The UN's feminist Malthusianism
The new State of the World’s Population report from the United Nations Population Fund takes what could be called a Malthusian-feminist approach to climate change. First, it assumes there is some kind of relationship between population numbers and carbon emissions. Second, it argues that “women’s empowerment”, encouraging women to have fewer children, is the solution to the problem.
It is wrong on both scores. There is no correlation between population numbers and carbon emissions. Rich countries tend to have far higher carbon emissions per head than poorer ones. However, there are also big differences between rich countries depending on the extent to which the energy supply is decarbonised. As for women, putting pressure on them to have fewer children is the antithesis of free choice. To be truly free they should be able to choose to have more or fewer children.
It is wrong on both scores. There is no correlation between population numbers and carbon emissions. Rich countries tend to have far higher carbon emissions per head than poorer ones. However, there are also big differences between rich countries depending on the extent to which the energy supply is decarbonised. As for women, putting pressure on them to have fewer children is the antithesis of free choice. To be truly free they should be able to choose to have more or fewer children.
Labels: climate, consumption, environment, Malthus
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Rare common sense on climate change
Some all too rare common sense on climate change from Nancy Birdsall and Arvind Subramanian of the Center for Global Development in an opinion piece in today’s Financial Times. The two authors go against the conventional wisdom in arguing against the primacy of cutting carbon emissions in the developing world:
“But emissions are not the primary issue. People do not consume emissions, they consume basic energy services. In the developing world, billions of people are now cooking over health-harming wood fires in shanty towns (rather than receiving piped gas and electricity), doing backbreaking hoe farming (not operating tractors) and walking or cycling to work (not driving small cars, let alone gas-guzzlers). Cutting emissions would push them from just above subsistence back, literally, to the dark ages.”
I do not agree with the entirety of their article but in rejecting the overwhelming priority given to reducing carbon emissions they deserve a loud round of applause.
“But emissions are not the primary issue. People do not consume emissions, they consume basic energy services. In the developing world, billions of people are now cooking over health-harming wood fires in shanty towns (rather than receiving piped gas and electricity), doing backbreaking hoe farming (not operating tractors) and walking or cycling to work (not driving small cars, let alone gas-guzzlers). Cutting emissions would push them from just above subsistence back, literally, to the dark ages.”
I do not agree with the entirety of their article but in rejecting the overwhelming priority given to reducing carbon emissions they deserve a loud round of applause.
Labels: climate, development, energy, environment
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
German attack on Obama and Americans
Christian Schwägerl, writing an opinion piece in Der Spiegel, exhibits a strident moral superiority when criticising Barack Obama’s rejection of accepting binding limits on carbon emissions at the forthcoming Copenhagen summit. Schwägerl makes the worst possible criticism he can of Obama – likening him to George W Bush:
“Barack Obama cast himself as a ‘citizen of the world’ when he delivered his well-received campaign speech in Berlin in the summer of 2008. But the US president has now betrayed this claim. In his Berlin speech, he was dishonest with Europe. Since then, Obama has neglected the single most important issue for an American president who likes to imagine himself as a world citizen, namely his country's addiction to fossil fuels and the risks of unchecked climate change.”
He then goes on to make a sweeping attack on Americans for being parochial:
“For most Americans, the world beyond the US's borders is nothing more than an irritating nuisance. Hence arguments based on appeals about drowning Bangladeshis, starving Africans and flooded islands in Indonesia have little effect. In Hollywood, the United States has an industry that continually pushes the materialistic ideal of Western prosperity to billions of people around the world, while at the same time bombarding them with apocalyptic visions in the form of disaster movies.”
Perhaps Schwägerl should interrogate his own ideas before making such sweeping attacks on others. There is good reason to question whether climate change is the most important issue facing humanity. And in his own way Schwägerl betrays a parochial outlook. He should ask himself why countries – including Germany - find it much easier to make pious statements about climate change than to actually cut emissions.
“Barack Obama cast himself as a ‘citizen of the world’ when he delivered his well-received campaign speech in Berlin in the summer of 2008. But the US president has now betrayed this claim. In his Berlin speech, he was dishonest with Europe. Since then, Obama has neglected the single most important issue for an American president who likes to imagine himself as a world citizen, namely his country's addiction to fossil fuels and the risks of unchecked climate change.”
He then goes on to make a sweeping attack on Americans for being parochial:
“For most Americans, the world beyond the US's borders is nothing more than an irritating nuisance. Hence arguments based on appeals about drowning Bangladeshis, starving Africans and flooded islands in Indonesia have little effect. In Hollywood, the United States has an industry that continually pushes the materialistic ideal of Western prosperity to billions of people around the world, while at the same time bombarding them with apocalyptic visions in the form of disaster movies.”
Perhaps Schwägerl should interrogate his own ideas before making such sweeping attacks on others. There is good reason to question whether climate change is the most important issue facing humanity. And in his own way Schwägerl betrays a parochial outlook. He should ask himself why countries – including Germany - find it much easier to make pious statements about climate change than to actually cut emissions.
Labels: America, climate, Germany
London School of Economics video lectures
Anyone who wants to hear leading exponents of mainstream views on economic and social issues could benefit from listening to some of the public lectures at the London School of Economics. British speakers such as Nicholas Stern on climate change and Paul Collier on Africa regularly feature as do international speakers such as Paul Krugman and Jeffrey Sachs. It is no longer necessary to live in London to hear such speakers as the key lectures are available to watch as podcasts.
Anyone looking for original or radical ideas should look elsewhere.
Anyone looking for original or radical ideas should look elsewhere.
Labels: Africa, climate, economics
Monday, November 16, 2009
Engineers report on climate change
Britain’s Institution of Mechanical Engineers has produced an interesting report (PDF) criticising the government’s approach to tackling climate change. According to the report the government will not come close to meeting its target of reducing carbon emissions by 80% between 1990 and 2050 if it continues to purse an approach based overwhelmingly on mitigation. Instead it advocates what it calls a MAG approach based on a combination of mitigation, adaptation and geo-engineering.
To put the challenge into perspective the report argues that to be on track to meet its target Britain would be need to be as fuel efficient as France (the most decarbonised of the developed economies owing to its earlier investment in nuclear power) by 2015. This would mean the equivalent of building 30 nuclear power stations and retiring an equal number of coal-fired ones.
It is worth noting that the report is based on work undertaken by Professor Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado.
The report does not examine broader conceptual questions such as whether mitigation – which lumps together measures to reduce demand with measures to bolster a decarbonised supply – is a useful category.
To put the challenge into perspective the report argues that to be on track to meet its target Britain would be need to be as fuel efficient as France (the most decarbonised of the developed economies owing to its earlier investment in nuclear power) by 2015. This would mean the equivalent of building 30 nuclear power stations and retiring an equal number of coal-fired ones.
It is worth noting that the report is based on work undertaken by Professor Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado.
The report does not examine broader conceptual questions such as whether mitigation – which lumps together measures to reduce demand with measures to bolster a decarbonised supply – is a useful category.
Labels: climate, energy, environment
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Back in action
After a three week break I am getting back into blogging. Once I receive comments from my publisher I also will have to rewrite my book manuscript by the end of the month.
So far the links I have found are as follows. If you think I have missed anything particularly important while I have been away please email me.
* I was particularly said to miss this year’s Battle of Ideas festival in London. However, several sessions, including one on post-recession ideologies, are already available on audio. Others will hopefully soon follow on video. Rob Killick has also written up his speech on economic growth and its discontents.
* Worldwrite’s regular Worldbytes television magazine programme includes an item on austerity and the alleged lesions of the Second World War.
* Al Gore is in the news a lot with a new book coming out entitled Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis. He is also the subject of the cover story in this week’s Newsweek while a New York Times article examines the possible conflict of interest between Gore as an investor and as an advocate for action on climate change.
* Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, made much of the battle against climate change in her address to the American congress.
* Meanwhile, the implication of this BBC article and the related radio programme is that nostalgia for East German values is a form that growth scepticism is taking in Germany. I am not sure this is correct but it is certainly worth investigating.
So far the links I have found are as follows. If you think I have missed anything particularly important while I have been away please email me.
* I was particularly said to miss this year’s Battle of Ideas festival in London. However, several sessions, including one on post-recession ideologies, are already available on audio. Others will hopefully soon follow on video. Rob Killick has also written up his speech on economic growth and its discontents.
* Worldwrite’s regular Worldbytes television magazine programme includes an item on austerity and the alleged lesions of the Second World War.
* Al Gore is in the news a lot with a new book coming out entitled Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis. He is also the subject of the cover story in this week’s Newsweek while a New York Times article examines the possible conflict of interest between Gore as an investor and as an advocate for action on climate change.
* Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, made much of the battle against climate change in her address to the American congress.
* Meanwhile, the implication of this BBC article and the related radio programme is that nostalgia for East German values is a form that growth scepticism is taking in Germany. I am not sure this is correct but it is certainly worth investigating.
Labels: America, book, climate, environment, Germany, radio, television, Worldwrite
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Oxfam calls for rationing growth
Duncan Green of Oxfam explicitly calls for the rationing of economic growth in his blog today. He summarises the conclusions of his talk to a Quaker economic conference as follows:
“if you want to maximise happiness (a utilitarian argument which offends the rights-based people, I know, but not a bad start) AND prevent catastrophic global warming, you need to make sure that incomes rise in the poor countries, but are steady or falling in the rich ones. i.e. we need to ration growth – it’s just too precious (and dirty) to waste on the rich countries.”
This neatly shows the use of climate change as an argument against growth in the mainstream discussion. At least Green - unlike many others - has the virtue of being open about his conclusions.
“if you want to maximise happiness (a utilitarian argument which offends the rights-based people, I know, but not a bad start) AND prevent catastrophic global warming, you need to make sure that incomes rise in the poor countries, but are steady or falling in the rich ones. i.e. we need to ration growth – it’s just too precious (and dirty) to waste on the rich countries.”
This neatly shows the use of climate change as an argument against growth in the mainstream discussion. At least Green - unlike many others - has the virtue of being open about his conclusions.
Labels: climate, consumption, environment, growth
Sunday, September 27, 2009
The high cost of clean energy
Paul Krugman expressed the mainstream line when he argued in a column in the New York Times on Thursday that “it’s easy being green”. For Krugman the cost of cutting carbon emissions will be minimal.
His argument rests on two propositions. First, bolstering energy efficiency should cut wastage and therefore end up making consumers richer. Second, the best available economic analysis suggests that cuts in greenhouse emissions would only impose modest cuts on the average family.
I have not studied the American material on this subject in detail but I am pretty sure that Krugman is underestimating the costs of cutting greenhouse gas emissions. For a start making steep cuts in energy efficiency is not straightforward. Even making a house significantly more energy efficient can involve substantial investment. Making production more energy efficient can also be costly. Energy efficiency does tend to increase over time but it is not a straightforward process and generally does not happen in a dramatic way. Also, contrary to the common perception, greater energy efficiency normally leads to more energy use rather than less.
Second, even if it were true that greenhouse emissions would only impose modest cuts for the average family, and I would question the maths here, why should people accept reductions in their living standards? Surely people should justifiable expect their living standards to increase?
What the world really needs is more energy use rather than less. The key is to invest in new, decarbonised forms of energy supply. Such investments will be expensive but if sufficient economic growth can be generated they would be affordable. They should also create the basis for further growth in the future.
His argument rests on two propositions. First, bolstering energy efficiency should cut wastage and therefore end up making consumers richer. Second, the best available economic analysis suggests that cuts in greenhouse emissions would only impose modest cuts on the average family.
I have not studied the American material on this subject in detail but I am pretty sure that Krugman is underestimating the costs of cutting greenhouse gas emissions. For a start making steep cuts in energy efficiency is not straightforward. Even making a house significantly more energy efficient can involve substantial investment. Making production more energy efficient can also be costly. Energy efficiency does tend to increase over time but it is not a straightforward process and generally does not happen in a dramatic way. Also, contrary to the common perception, greater energy efficiency normally leads to more energy use rather than less.
Second, even if it were true that greenhouse emissions would only impose modest cuts for the average family, and I would question the maths here, why should people accept reductions in their living standards? Surely people should justifiable expect their living standards to increase?
What the world really needs is more energy use rather than less. The key is to invest in new, decarbonised forms of energy supply. Such investments will be expensive but if sufficient economic growth can be generated they would be affordable. They should also create the basis for further growth in the future.
Labels: climate, consumption, energy
Sunday, September 20, 2009
More climate change-ification
A couple more examples of the trend to interpreting questions through the prism of climate change:
* Some 18 of the world’s professional medical organisations argue that the failure to reach agreement at the climate change summit in Copenhagen will lead to a “global health catastrophe”. In this case health is not only being linked to climate change but to a specific conception of how the problem should be tackled. It is also worth noting that Michael Marmot, one of the instigators of the medical initiative, has also played a key role in arguing that well being and affluence should be separated.
* The Marie Stopes International, a London-based sexual and reproduction health organisation, argues that a shortage of condoms in Africa is leading to runaway population growth which will in turn cause climate change. Leo Bryant, an advocacy manager for the organisation and the lead author of a World Health Organization report on the subject (PDF), was quoted as saying: “It’s time to start looking at the environmental relevance of family planning,” in a telephone interview. “Reproductive health services ought to be integrated into the climate adaptation strategy.”
* Some 18 of the world’s professional medical organisations argue that the failure to reach agreement at the climate change summit in Copenhagen will lead to a “global health catastrophe”. In this case health is not only being linked to climate change but to a specific conception of how the problem should be tackled. It is also worth noting that Michael Marmot, one of the instigators of the medical initiative, has also played a key role in arguing that well being and affluence should be separated.
* The Marie Stopes International, a London-based sexual and reproduction health organisation, argues that a shortage of condoms in Africa is leading to runaway population growth which will in turn cause climate change. Leo Bryant, an advocacy manager for the organisation and the lead author of a World Health Organization report on the subject (PDF), was quoted as saying: “It’s time to start looking at the environmental relevance of family planning,” in a telephone interview. “Reproductive health services ought to be integrated into the climate adaptation strategy.”
Labels: climate, development, environment, health
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Against green growth
In the run-up to the Copenhagen summit in December there is no doubt going to be more of an obsession with climate change than ever. One area in which this is clear is in relation to development. A couple of key recent reports on the subject have made a concerted effort to redefine it in relation to climate change:
The World Development Report 2010 from the World Bank on Development and Climate Change The. There is also an accompanying World Bank blog combining the two topics.
- From the United Nations there is World Economic and Social Survey 2009: Promoting Development, Saving the Planet which covers similar ground as the World Bank report.
The combination of climate change and development can only damage understanding of both topics. No doubt there is a relationship between the two – it is a truism that the poor will suffer more as a result of climate change than the rich – but they should be kept logically distinct. Combining the two is essentially a way of putting limits on the possibilities for development. Despite the sometimes ambitious sounding rhetoric what is essentially being said is that development must be limited for the sake of the planet.
This combination of climate change and development also points to a broader and even more retrograde trend. It is what could be called “the climate change-isation of everything”. No doubt there is a snappier way of putting it – any suggestions please email me – but virtually every social problem nowadays seem to be being redefined in relation to climate change. It has become more of a moral category than a scientific one.
The World Development Report 2010 from the World Bank on Development and Climate Change The. There is also an accompanying World Bank blog combining the two topics.
- From the United Nations there is World Economic and Social Survey 2009: Promoting Development, Saving the Planet which covers similar ground as the World Bank report.
The combination of climate change and development can only damage understanding of both topics. No doubt there is a relationship between the two – it is a truism that the poor will suffer more as a result of climate change than the rich – but they should be kept logically distinct. Combining the two is essentially a way of putting limits on the possibilities for development. Despite the sometimes ambitious sounding rhetoric what is essentially being said is that development must be limited for the sake of the planet.
This combination of climate change and development also points to a broader and even more retrograde trend. It is what could be called “the climate change-isation of everything”. No doubt there is a snappier way of putting it – any suggestions please email me – but virtually every social problem nowadays seem to be being redefined in relation to climate change. It has become more of a moral category than a scientific one.
Labels: climate, development, economics, environment, growth
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The Copenhagen climate game
I think I have worked out the rules of “the Copenhagen climate game” - officially known as the Climate Conference in Copenhagen - in December.
The aim of the game is to appear as pious as possible about climate change while playing down the practical difficulties of cutting carbon emissions. It seems the best way to achieve this objective is to declare ambitious targets on cutting emissions while making them conditional on others acting in a certain way. That makes it possible for each individual player to claim to be doing The Right Thing while blaming others for any failure to reach agreement.
It is hard to think of a more impractical and cynical process.
The aim of the game is to appear as pious as possible about climate change while playing down the practical difficulties of cutting carbon emissions. It seems the best way to achieve this objective is to declare ambitious targets on cutting emissions while making them conditional on others acting in a certain way. That makes it possible for each individual player to claim to be doing The Right Thing while blaming others for any failure to reach agreement.
It is hard to think of a more impractical and cynical process.
Labels: climate, environment
Saturday, September 05, 2009
Proposal for global carbon rationing
Back in 2006 David Miliband, then Britain’s environment minister, proposed that everyone in the country should have an individual climate change allowance (see 20 July 2006 post). Now Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the German government's climate protection adviser, has taken the argument a step further. He argues in an interview in Spiegel for an individual climate allowance for every person in the planet.
This proposal clearly amounts to support for rationing. Even if it is not implemented in practice it will reinforce the prevailing climate of austerity.
This proposal clearly amounts to support for rationing. Even if it is not implemented in practice it will reinforce the prevailing climate of austerity.
Labels: climate, consumption, environment, Germany
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Pankhurst on prosperity
I was planning to write a note on the 10: 10 campaign launched in Britain yesterday but Brendan O’Neill has saved me the trouble with a critique on the Guardian comment is free site.
I particularly liked the concluding quote on prosperity from Sylvia Pankhurst, the revolutionary suffragette leader, so I checked it out. It is from an article in Workers’ Dreadnought, 28 July 1923:
“Socialism means plenty for all. We do not preach a gospel of want and scarcity, but of abundance.
“Our desire is not to make poor those who to-day are rich, in order to put the poor in the place where the rich now are. Our desire is not to pull down the present rulers to put other rulers in their places.
“We wish to abolish poverty and to provide abundance for all.
“We do not call for limitation of births, for penurious thrift, and self-denial. We call for a great production that will supply all, and more than all the people can consume.”
Those who assume that supporting prosperity is a free market preoccupation take note.
I particularly liked the concluding quote on prosperity from Sylvia Pankhurst, the revolutionary suffragette leader, so I checked it out. It is from an article in Workers’ Dreadnought, 28 July 1923:
“Socialism means plenty for all. We do not preach a gospel of want and scarcity, but of abundance.
“Our desire is not to make poor those who to-day are rich, in order to put the poor in the place where the rich now are. Our desire is not to pull down the present rulers to put other rulers in their places.
“We wish to abolish poverty and to provide abundance for all.
“We do not call for limitation of births, for penurious thrift, and self-denial. We call for a great production that will supply all, and more than all the people can consume.”
Those who assume that supporting prosperity is a free market preoccupation take note.
Labels: climate, consumption, geo-engineering, growth, Malthus, progress
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Downplaying economic pain
Partha Dasgupta, a professor of economics at Cambridge University and a patron of the Optimum Population Trust, tries to play down the costs of dealing with climate change in a lecture to the Sante Fe Institute. He argues that the costs of dealing with climate change could amount up to 10% of the GDP of the rich countries equivalent to trillions of dollars. But since GDP has grown at an average rate of about 2% a year for the past 30 years such a loss would mean going back to the way things were four or five years ago. Since things were not so bad then, he argues, going back to the recent past would not be a big deal.
Such an outlook reveals exceedingly low horizons. For example, think of the pain caused by the recent global economic crisis. Yet, according to the latest estimate from the International Monetary Fund, output in the advanced economies will fall by only 3.8% this year. In any case the world is not nearly rich enough to tackle all the challenges it faces now – let alone if it was 10% poorer.
Such an outlook reveals exceedingly low horizons. For example, think of the pain caused by the recent global economic crisis. Yet, according to the latest estimate from the International Monetary Fund, output in the advanced economies will fall by only 3.8% this year. In any case the world is not nearly rich enough to tackle all the challenges it faces now – let alone if it was 10% poorer.
Labels: climate, economics, environment, growth, Malthus
Sunday, July 19, 2009
New links
I have added a couple of new websites to the links library in the left hand column. They are Bureau for Research and Economic Analysis of Development (BREAD and Indur Goklany’s website.
Labels: climate, development, economics, environment, science, technology
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Treason against the planet?
I have not posted for a couple of days as I have been incredibly busy. However, Paul Krugman’s column in the New York Times on Sunday particularly amused me. The Nobel prize winning economist denounced the “deniers” who opposed the Waxman-Markey climate change bill as guilty of “treason against the planet”. It is hard to see what this means. How can someone be loyal to what is essentially a lump of rock?
It is certainly possible to be concerned about the impact of environmental degradation on humanity. But “treason against the planet” is absurd.
Krugman is undoubtedly clever but his argument on this point makes no sense.
It is certainly possible to be concerned about the impact of environmental degradation on humanity. But “treason against the planet” is absurd.
Krugman is undoubtedly clever but his argument on this point makes no sense.
Labels: America, climate, environment
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Global Warming and Other Bollocks
An interesting-sounding new book on some of the pervasive environmentalist myths is about to be published. Global Warming and Other Bollocks (Metro) argues, among other things, that Turkey Twizzlers are good for you and polar bears are not dying out. It is by Stanley Feldman, a professor of anaesthetics at London University, and Vincent Marks, a former professor of clinical biochemistry and dean of medicine at the University of Surrey.
I do not agree with all the arguments but it sounds worth reading. There is a sneak preview in this article in yesterday’s Daily Mail.
I do not agree with all the arguments but it sounds worth reading. There is a sneak preview in this article in yesterday’s Daily Mail.
Labels: book, climate, consumption, environment, food
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Marxist ecology
One of perhaps the saddest and most peculiar intellectual developments of recent years is the development of a “Marxist ecology” (for instance, in the work of John Bellamy Foster and Paul Burkett). Whereas Marxism, at least in its origins, was a theory of human liberation, the project of Marxist ecology is broadly to pose the case for natural limits in radical sounding language. In simple terms it could be said to be taking what are essentially the arguments of Thomas Malthus – to which Karl Marx was vehemently opposed – and expressing them in Marxist language.
Although Marxist ecology is not directly influential it does have an important indirect influence. Many contemporary green ideas are expressed in apparently radical, almost Marxist, terms. Think, for example, of authors who talk of powerful corporations subverting the state (for example, Noreena Hertz, Naomi Klein and George Monbiot). Anti-capitalism, at least of a sort, is in fashion.
For that reason I was particularly struck by the essay on Capitalism in Wonderland in the May issue of Monthly Review. The authors of the article in the self-styled “independent socialist” magazine attack economists and their supposed slavish devotion to economic growth. From their growth sceptic perspective the obsession with capital accumulation (that is economic growth) inevitably leads to environmental degradation. Orthodox economists are essentially lackeys of the capitalist system. The thinkers who figure most prominently in the attack are those who have most prominently criticised the environmentalist viewpoint: Bjørn Lomborg (who is not an economist by profession), William Nordhaus and Julian Simon.
However, it is only possible to sustain such an argument by misrepresenting both neo-classical economics and Marxism. In brief:
* Orthodox economics is much more wary of economic growth than the Monthly Review narrative suggests. Although it is cautious pro-growth its starting point is the allocation of scare resources. In this sense it shares common ground with environmentalism. It is also striking how economists have taken on board the notion of “sustainability” – in other words there needs to be limits on growth. This assumption has become thoroughly mainstream.
* Marx, who was writing at a time when economic growth was generally seen as welcome, was strongly in favour of increased prosperity. His concern was that the capitalist mode of production limited the scope of economic expansion. In other words, growth under capitalism tended to be uneven and crisis-ridden. It is possible to contest Marx’s ideas but to portray him as anti-growth is a gross misrepresentation.
As it happens its environmentalist ideas that are apologetic in character. They are what Georg Lukács, a Hungarian Marxist thinker, referred to as “indirect apologetics”. Rather than directly defend capitalism they argue that the damaging effects of the market system are somehow natural. For example, the current lack of economic growth is the result of natural limits rather than anything to do with the specifics of capitalism. For Lukács: “indirect apologetics crudely elaborated the bad sides of capitalism, the atrocities of capitalism, but explained them not as attributes of capitalism but of all human existence and existence in general” (The Destruction of Reason, Merlin Press 1980, p202-3).
Despite their radical rhetoric the ecological Marxists are deeply conservative.
Although Marxist ecology is not directly influential it does have an important indirect influence. Many contemporary green ideas are expressed in apparently radical, almost Marxist, terms. Think, for example, of authors who talk of powerful corporations subverting the state (for example, Noreena Hertz, Naomi Klein and George Monbiot). Anti-capitalism, at least of a sort, is in fashion.
For that reason I was particularly struck by the essay on Capitalism in Wonderland in the May issue of Monthly Review. The authors of the article in the self-styled “independent socialist” magazine attack economists and their supposed slavish devotion to economic growth. From their growth sceptic perspective the obsession with capital accumulation (that is economic growth) inevitably leads to environmental degradation. Orthodox economists are essentially lackeys of the capitalist system. The thinkers who figure most prominently in the attack are those who have most prominently criticised the environmentalist viewpoint: Bjørn Lomborg (who is not an economist by profession), William Nordhaus and Julian Simon.
However, it is only possible to sustain such an argument by misrepresenting both neo-classical economics and Marxism. In brief:
* Orthodox economics is much more wary of economic growth than the Monthly Review narrative suggests. Although it is cautious pro-growth its starting point is the allocation of scare resources. In this sense it shares common ground with environmentalism. It is also striking how economists have taken on board the notion of “sustainability” – in other words there needs to be limits on growth. This assumption has become thoroughly mainstream.
* Marx, who was writing at a time when economic growth was generally seen as welcome, was strongly in favour of increased prosperity. His concern was that the capitalist mode of production limited the scope of economic expansion. In other words, growth under capitalism tended to be uneven and crisis-ridden. It is possible to contest Marx’s ideas but to portray him as anti-growth is a gross misrepresentation.
As it happens its environmentalist ideas that are apologetic in character. They are what Georg Lukács, a Hungarian Marxist thinker, referred to as “indirect apologetics”. Rather than directly defend capitalism they argue that the damaging effects of the market system are somehow natural. For example, the current lack of economic growth is the result of natural limits rather than anything to do with the specifics of capitalism. For Lukács: “indirect apologetics crudely elaborated the bad sides of capitalism, the atrocities of capitalism, but explained them not as attributes of capitalism but of all human existence and existence in general” (The Destruction of Reason, Merlin Press 1980, p202-3).
Despite their radical rhetoric the ecological Marxists are deeply conservative.
Labels: climate, consumption, economics, environment, ethics
Sunday, May 31, 2009
How to lie with statistics
Environmentalists often draw ludicrous conclusions from their beloved statistical models. A recent prominent example is the estimate from the Global Humanitarian Forum, an organisation led by Kofi Annan (a former secretary-general of the United Nations), that global warming is causing more than 300,000 deaths and about $125 billion (£77 billion) in economic losses each year. The report is also endorsed by, among others, Jeffrey Sachs.
But the estimates are described as a “methodological embarrassment” by Roger Pielke, a political scientist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, who specialises in disasters, in a recent blog post. He points to several flaws in the model including:
• The stochastic nature of extreme weather events. In other words it is impossible to say for sure that an extreme weather event, such as a hurricane, is the result of climate change. It may be that climate change makes more events more likely but they would probably happen in any case without it.
• A shortage of good quality data. For sweeping conclusions to be justified they must be based on better data than is generally available.
• The role of various other potential factors that act in parallel and interact. For example, with economic development it may be that there are more buildings to destroy in a hurricane. But it does not follow that the physical force of hurricanes has necessarily become more destructive than in the past. .According to Piekle: “the increase in disasters observed worldwide can be entirely attributed to socio-economic changes. This is what has been extensively documented in the peer reviewed literature, and yet — none of this literature is cited in this [Global Humanitarian Forum] report. None of it!”
Piekle has also written a critique of similar methodological flaws (PDF) in the Stern Review on the economics of climate change.
But the estimates are described as a “methodological embarrassment” by Roger Pielke, a political scientist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, who specialises in disasters, in a recent blog post. He points to several flaws in the model including:
• The stochastic nature of extreme weather events. In other words it is impossible to say for sure that an extreme weather event, such as a hurricane, is the result of climate change. It may be that climate change makes more events more likely but they would probably happen in any case without it.
• A shortage of good quality data. For sweeping conclusions to be justified they must be based on better data than is generally available.
• The role of various other potential factors that act in parallel and interact. For example, with economic development it may be that there are more buildings to destroy in a hurricane. But it does not follow that the physical force of hurricanes has necessarily become more destructive than in the past. .According to Piekle: “the increase in disasters observed worldwide can be entirely attributed to socio-economic changes. This is what has been extensively documented in the peer reviewed literature, and yet — none of this literature is cited in this [Global Humanitarian Forum] report. None of it!”
Piekle has also written a critique of similar methodological flaws (PDF) in the Stern Review on the economics of climate change.
Labels: climate, consumption, development, economics, environment
Monday, May 04, 2009
The pro-nuclear myth
James Woudhuysen and Joe Kaplinsky argue in an article on spiked that New Labour’s apparent support for nuclear power is a myth. Although the British government is formally committed to atomic energy its support is qualified by so many caveats – on such questions as energy security and climate change – as to render it meaningless. It also grossly underestimates the need to increase energy supply.
I suspect the same is true of those environmental campaigners who have apparently switched to supporting nuclear power. Their support is likely to be so conditional that it would lead to opposition in practical terms.
I suspect the same is true of those environmental campaigners who have apparently switched to supporting nuclear power. Their support is likely to be so conditional that it would lead to opposition in practical terms.
Labels: climate, energy, environment, spiked, technology
Sunday, April 12, 2009
A call for pragmatic austerity
Will Hutton endorses recent Anthony Giddens’ call for a pragmatic middle of the road environmentalism in his regular Observer column (see 2 April 2009 post for book reference). Hutton rejects the utopian conservatism of the likes of Prince Charles and what he sees as the left wing anti-capitalism of the G20 protestors. Instead he favours mainstream arguments such as energy efficiency being sensible and the need for energy independence. However, he tellingly reveals that his goal is to persuade the mass of the population to make sacrifices: “to persuade western publics to make sacrifices requires more than trying to terrify them. It requires laying out concrete actions that collectively make sense now.” Hutton and Giddens are essentially arguing that the demand for austerity should be couched in the language of realism (for a similar argument in the Financial Times see post of 12 December 2008. Also see post of 4 February 2007).
Labels: climate, consumption, economics, energy, environment
Thursday, April 02, 2009
More growth sceptic tomes
Three more substantial and high profile contributions to the vast growth sceptic canon have recently been published in Britain:
Anthony Giddens The Politics of Climate Change (Polity Press). View of an influential sociologist and government adviser.
Peter Singer’s The Life You Can Save (Picador) argues the rich should give more to the global poor. In doing so it seems to assume there is only a fixed amount of resources to go round.
Nicholas’s Stern’s Blueprint for a Safer Planet (Bodley Head) updates his argument on the economics of climate change.
It constantly amazes me how authors of such books typically present their arguments as if they are unorthodox. They are without doubt purveyors of today’s mainstream consensus.
On a more positive note Mike Hulme’s Why We Disagree about Climate Change (Cambridge University Press) looks set to be a measured contribution to the discussion.
Anthony Giddens The Politics of Climate Change (Polity Press). View of an influential sociologist and government adviser.
Peter Singer’s The Life You Can Save (Picador) argues the rich should give more to the global poor. In doing so it seems to assume there is only a fixed amount of resources to go round.
Nicholas’s Stern’s Blueprint for a Safer Planet (Bodley Head) updates his argument on the economics of climate change.
It constantly amazes me how authors of such books typically present their arguments as if they are unorthodox. They are without doubt purveyors of today’s mainstream consensus.
On a more positive note Mike Hulme’s Why We Disagree about Climate Change (Cambridge University Press) looks set to be a measured contribution to the discussion.
Labels: book, climate, consumption, development, economics, environment
Monday, March 30, 2009
Prosperity without growth?
It’s official. The reason the economy is not growing is that we have had too much growth. The solution is to curb consumption. These are the conclusions of a report on Prosperity Without Growth by Professor Tim Jackson for the Sustainable Development Commission. Given his long-standing views on the subject the likely conclusions were pretty clear before it was written.
When I have time I hope to do a more detailed critique of the report. In the meantime I’d like to suggest the subject of a new report for the British government to commission. How about “breathing without oxygen”? Or perhaps “redefining black as white”?
When I have time I hope to do a more detailed critique of the report. In the meantime I’d like to suggest the subject of a new report for the British government to commission. How about “breathing without oxygen”? Or perhaps “redefining black as white”?
Labels: climate, consumption, economics, environment, sustainability
Sunday, March 22, 2009
More on Malthus
The Guardian’s Malthus comment discussed in a post yesterday was itself a response to a speech by John Beddington, the British government’s chief scientific adviser, arguing the world is facing a “perfect storm” of energy, food and water shortages by 2030.
Beddington does qualify his remarks by saying that the development of science and technology can help deal with such effects but it is a disingenuous claim. For example, it is almost true by definition that a rising population is a problem if there is not at least a corresponding rise in food supplies. Rather than point out the obvious surely it would be better to work on ways to raise productivity to enable humanity to overcome any shortages – that has been the pattern of modern history.
It is also sad to see the increase in the number of human beings discussed solely in terms of demand and consumption. Humans are producers too – with the ingenuity and capability of finding ways to overcome problems.
A particularly bleak interview with Beddington was that by John Humphrys on BBC Radio 4’s flagship Today programme. Humphrys focused on what he saw as the need for population control and cuts in consumption. In effect he was asking Beddington whether he was being pessimistic enough. With critics like that it is not surprising that environmentalism is making the running.
Beddington does qualify his remarks by saying that the development of science and technology can help deal with such effects but it is a disingenuous claim. For example, it is almost true by definition that a rising population is a problem if there is not at least a corresponding rise in food supplies. Rather than point out the obvious surely it would be better to work on ways to raise productivity to enable humanity to overcome any shortages – that has been the pattern of modern history.
It is also sad to see the increase in the number of human beings discussed solely in terms of demand and consumption. Humans are producers too – with the ingenuity and capability of finding ways to overcome problems.
A particularly bleak interview with Beddington was that by John Humphrys on BBC Radio 4’s flagship Today programme. Humphrys focused on what he saw as the need for population control and cuts in consumption. In effect he was asking Beddington whether he was being pessimistic enough. With critics like that it is not surprising that environmentalism is making the running.
Labels: climate, consumption, energy, environment, food, Malthus, science, technology, water
Saturday, March 21, 2009
A misleading “consensus” on climate change
A piece on the BBC website by Mike Hulme, a professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, on the misleading idea of a consensus at a conference of over 2,000 climate change researchers in Copenhagen this week. From his account it was a vigorous and thoughtful conference with numerous opinions being expressed on a wide range of subjects related to climate change. Yet the 600 word statement, containing six key messages, coming out of the conference was largely drafted before it started by a small organising committee. It did not, in his view, represent the collective consensus of the event:
“The six key messages are not the collective voice of 2,000 researchers, nor are they the voice of established bodies such as the WMO [World Meteorological Organization]. Neither do they arise from a collective endeavour of experts, for example through a considered process of screening, synthesising and reviewing.”
He also criticises the vagueness of the messages:
“It … seems problematic to me when such lively, well-informed and yet largely unresolved debates get reduced to six key messages, messages that on the one hand carry the aura of urgency, precision and scientific authority - "there is no excuse for inaction" - and yet at the same time remain so imprecise as to dictate or resolve nothing in political terms.”
“The six key messages are not the collective voice of 2,000 researchers, nor are they the voice of established bodies such as the WMO [World Meteorological Organization]. Neither do they arise from a collective endeavour of experts, for example through a considered process of screening, synthesising and reviewing.”
He also criticises the vagueness of the messages:
“It … seems problematic to me when such lively, well-informed and yet largely unresolved debates get reduced to six key messages, messages that on the one hand carry the aura of urgency, precision and scientific authority - "there is no excuse for inaction" - and yet at the same time remain so imprecise as to dictate or resolve nothing in political terms.”
Labels: climate, environment
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Goklany optimistic on climate change
The ever astute Indur Goklany made what sounds like a fascinating speech to the International Conference on Climate Change in New York, judging by a report in Reason by Ronald Bailey (for my January 2007 interview with Goklany see the My Reviews section on the left hand site of the homepage). Evidently Goklany used data from, among others, the World Health Organization (WHO ) and the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to show that the world looks like getting better in many respects even on highly pessimistic assumptions:
“From the Stern Review, Goklany took the worst case scenario, where man-made global warming produces market and non-market losses equal to 35 percent of the benefits that are projected to exist in the absence of climate change by 2200. What did he find? Even assuming the worst emissions scenario, incomes for both developed and developing countries still rise spectacularly. In 1990, average incomes in developing countries stood around $1,000 per capita and at aroud $14,000 in developed countries. Assuming the worst means that average incomes in developing countries would rise in 2100 to $62,000 and in developed countries to $99,000. By 2200, average incomes would rise to $86,000 and $139,000 in developing and developed countries, respectively. In other words, the warmest world turns out to be the richest world.
“Looking at WHO numbers, one finds that the percentage of deaths attributed to climate change now is 13th on the list of causes of mortality, standing at about 200,000 per year, or 0.3 percent of all deaths. High blood pressure is first on the list, accounting for 7 million (12 percent) of deaths; high cholesterol is second at 4.4 million; and hunger is third. Clearly, climate change is not the most important public health problem today. But what about the future? Again looking at just the worst case of warming, climate change would boost the number of deaths in 2085 by 237,000 above what they would otherwise be according to the fast track analyses. Many of the authors of the fast track analyses also co-authored the IPCC's socioeconomic impact assessments.
“Various environmental indicators would also improve. For example, 11.6 percent of the world's land was used for growing crops in 1990. In the warmest world, agricultural productivity is projected to increase so much that the amount of land used for crops would drop to just 5 percent by 2100, leaving more land for nature. In other words, if these official projections are correct, man-made global warming is by no means the most important problem faced by humanity.”
“From the Stern Review, Goklany took the worst case scenario, where man-made global warming produces market and non-market losses equal to 35 percent of the benefits that are projected to exist in the absence of climate change by 2200. What did he find? Even assuming the worst emissions scenario, incomes for both developed and developing countries still rise spectacularly. In 1990, average incomes in developing countries stood around $1,000 per capita and at aroud $14,000 in developed countries. Assuming the worst means that average incomes in developing countries would rise in 2100 to $62,000 and in developed countries to $99,000. By 2200, average incomes would rise to $86,000 and $139,000 in developing and developed countries, respectively. In other words, the warmest world turns out to be the richest world.
“Looking at WHO numbers, one finds that the percentage of deaths attributed to climate change now is 13th on the list of causes of mortality, standing at about 200,000 per year, or 0.3 percent of all deaths. High blood pressure is first on the list, accounting for 7 million (12 percent) of deaths; high cholesterol is second at 4.4 million; and hunger is third. Clearly, climate change is not the most important public health problem today. But what about the future? Again looking at just the worst case of warming, climate change would boost the number of deaths in 2085 by 237,000 above what they would otherwise be according to the fast track analyses. Many of the authors of the fast track analyses also co-authored the IPCC's socioeconomic impact assessments.
“Various environmental indicators would also improve. For example, 11.6 percent of the world's land was used for growing crops in 1990. In the warmest world, agricultural productivity is projected to increase so much that the amount of land used for crops would drop to just 5 percent by 2100, leaving more land for nature. In other words, if these official projections are correct, man-made global warming is by no means the most important problem faced by humanity.”
Labels: climate, environment
Sunday, March 08, 2009
A confused doom-monger
Thomas Friedman, the New York Times foreign affairs columnist and doom-monger-in-chief, has written an op-ed piece claiming the economic growth model must come to an end:
“We have created a system for growth that depended on our building more and more stores to sell more and more stuff made in more and more factories in China, powered by more and more coal that would cause more and more climate change but earn China more and more dollars to buy more and more U.S. T-bills so America would have more and more money to build more and more stores and sell more and more stuff that would employ more and more Chinese ...
“We can’t do this anymore.”
This passage makes the elementary mistake of conflating two different things. It is true that the economic imbalance between American consumption and Chinese production looks unsustainable. Either the Americans will have to produce more than they are or consume less relative to the Chinese. America cannot simply continue borrowing huge amounts of Chinese money to finance its consumption. But this is a fundamentally different problem from the supposed natural limit to economic growth that Friedman is suggesting.
“We have created a system for growth that depended on our building more and more stores to sell more and more stuff made in more and more factories in China, powered by more and more coal that would cause more and more climate change but earn China more and more dollars to buy more and more U.S. T-bills so America would have more and more money to build more and more stores and sell more and more stuff that would employ more and more Chinese ...
“We can’t do this anymore.”
This passage makes the elementary mistake of conflating two different things. It is true that the economic imbalance between American consumption and Chinese production looks unsustainable. Either the Americans will have to produce more than they are or consume less relative to the Chinese. America cannot simply continue borrowing huge amounts of Chinese money to finance its consumption. But this is a fundamentally different problem from the supposed natural limit to economic growth that Friedman is suggesting.
Labels: America, china, climate, economics, environment, growth
Monday, March 02, 2009
Critique of Green New Deal
Fund Strategy has published my critique of the Green New Deal as a cover story. Meanwhile, there follows my latest comment from the magazine (2 March issue).
It is becoming increasingly common for commentators to overestimate the newness of key economic trends.
A striking example is the tendency to regard key problems in the American and British economies as new. It would be more accurate to see the current blatant weaknesses as a continuation of existing underlying trends.
Some of the more astute economic commentators, such as Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley, had long made the point that the global economy was fundamentally unbalanced. America could only maintain its high levels of consumption as a result of huge capital flows from Asia and the Middle East.
Many wrongly saw this trend as a sign of America’s economic strength. The world was “flying on one engine” and the American consumer was providing the propulsion. It would have been more accurate to argue that Asian growth was propelling the world economy, including America, forward.
Britain’s weakness was disguised by City of London success. But the City’s revenues depended largely on international capital flows and institutions. When these started to dry up the weakness of Britain’s productive base was cruelly exposed.
Another trend with greater longevity than normally assumed is the demise of free market economics or “neo-liberalism”. Many commentators argue that the bail-outs of financial institutions signal an end to belief in the free market. In reality the idea of the free market died many years ago.
Western economies, including America and Britain, have long had a consensus in favour of what could be called a regulated market. They do not propose any alternative to capitalism but at the same time they support an extensive system of regulation. It is a long way from the minimal state advocated by staunch advocates of free market economics.
The reality of state intervention should be apparent from the high levels of public spending in both America and Britain. Such spending is inconsistent with a genuine free market.
Many of the key economic trends in the world today are far less new than is generally assumed. The only reason this is not widely understood is the impressionism of much of contemporary economics. The temptation to take things at their face value should be avoided.
It is becoming increasingly common for commentators to overestimate the newness of key economic trends.
A striking example is the tendency to regard key problems in the American and British economies as new. It would be more accurate to see the current blatant weaknesses as a continuation of existing underlying trends.
Some of the more astute economic commentators, such as Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley, had long made the point that the global economy was fundamentally unbalanced. America could only maintain its high levels of consumption as a result of huge capital flows from Asia and the Middle East.
Many wrongly saw this trend as a sign of America’s economic strength. The world was “flying on one engine” and the American consumer was providing the propulsion. It would have been more accurate to argue that Asian growth was propelling the world economy, including America, forward.
Britain’s weakness was disguised by City of London success. But the City’s revenues depended largely on international capital flows and institutions. When these started to dry up the weakness of Britain’s productive base was cruelly exposed.
Another trend with greater longevity than normally assumed is the demise of free market economics or “neo-liberalism”. Many commentators argue that the bail-outs of financial institutions signal an end to belief in the free market. In reality the idea of the free market died many years ago.
Western economies, including America and Britain, have long had a consensus in favour of what could be called a regulated market. They do not propose any alternative to capitalism but at the same time they support an extensive system of regulation. It is a long way from the minimal state advocated by staunch advocates of free market economics.
The reality of state intervention should be apparent from the high levels of public spending in both America and Britain. Such spending is inconsistent with a genuine free market.
Many of the key economic trends in the world today are far less new than is generally assumed. The only reason this is not widely understood is the impressionism of much of contemporary economics. The temptation to take things at their face value should be avoided.
Labels: America, climate, consumption, economics, energy, environment, Fund Strategy
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Environmentalism: beyond redemption
Steven Hayward, a fellow of the Claremont Institute in California, has written a scathing review essay on American environmentalism drawing out its pessimism, misanthrope and authoritarian character. Admittedly his aim is to identify a progressive trend in contemporary American environmentalism – likely to be a forlorn task – but that does not detract from the usefulness of his piece.
Among his astute points:
•“A trip down the environment and earth sciences aisle of any larger bookstore is usually a tour of titles that cover the narrow range from dismay to despair.”
•“unlike the eschatology of all major religions, the eco-apocalypse is utterly without hope of redemption for man or nature.”
•“The greens turn purple at the suggestion that most environmental conditions in rich nations are actually improving, and they bemoan the lack of "progress" toward the transformation of the human soul that is thought necessary for the planet's salvation.”
•”One of the most popular books of 2007 among environmentalists was The World Without Us by Alan Weisman, which projects a "thought experiment" about what would occur if human beings were suddenly removed entirely from the planet. Answer: nature would reassert herself, and ultimately remove nearly all traces of human civilization within several millennia—a mere blink of an eye in the planetary timescale. Environmentalists cheered Weisman's vivid depiction of the resilience of nature, but what thrilled them was the scenario of a humanless earth. Weisman made sure to stroke his audience's self-loathing with plenty of boilerplate about resource exhaustion and overpopulation. The book rocketed up the best-seller list, the latest in a familiar genre stretching back at least to Fairfield Osborn's Our Plundered Planet in 1948, arguably the first neo-Malthusian doomsday tract of modern environmentalism. Time magazine named The World Without Us the number one non-fiction book of 2007.”
•“McKibben and many other environmental writers affect an indifference toward, or transcendence of, politics in the ordinary sense, but ultimately cannot conceal their rejection of the liberal tradition. Here we observe the irony of modern environmentalism: the concern for the preservation of unchanged nature has grown in tandem with the steady erosion in our belief in unchanging human nature; the concern for the "rights of nature" has come to embrace a rejection of natural rights for humans. McKibben is one of many current voices (Gore is another) who like to express their environmentalism by decrying "individualism" (McKibben calls it "hyperindividualism").”
•“Al Gore employed the same "communitarian" trope in his first and most famous environmental book, Earth in the Balance (1992), where, in the course of arguing that the environment should be the "central organizing principle" of civilization, he suggested that the problem with individual liberty is that we have too much of it. This preference for soft despotism has become more concrete with the increasing panic over global warming in the past few years. Several environmental authors now argue openly that democracy itself is the obstacle and needs to be abandoned.”
Those who Hayward sees as representing a positive backlash against mainstream environmentalism include Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, the authors of Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility (Houghton Mifflin 2007).
Among his astute points:
•“A trip down the environment and earth sciences aisle of any larger bookstore is usually a tour of titles that cover the narrow range from dismay to despair.”
•“unlike the eschatology of all major religions, the eco-apocalypse is utterly without hope of redemption for man or nature.”
•“The greens turn purple at the suggestion that most environmental conditions in rich nations are actually improving, and they bemoan the lack of "progress" toward the transformation of the human soul that is thought necessary for the planet's salvation.”
•”One of the most popular books of 2007 among environmentalists was The World Without Us by Alan Weisman, which projects a "thought experiment" about what would occur if human beings were suddenly removed entirely from the planet. Answer: nature would reassert herself, and ultimately remove nearly all traces of human civilization within several millennia—a mere blink of an eye in the planetary timescale. Environmentalists cheered Weisman's vivid depiction of the resilience of nature, but what thrilled them was the scenario of a humanless earth. Weisman made sure to stroke his audience's self-loathing with plenty of boilerplate about resource exhaustion and overpopulation. The book rocketed up the best-seller list, the latest in a familiar genre stretching back at least to Fairfield Osborn's Our Plundered Planet in 1948, arguably the first neo-Malthusian doomsday tract of modern environmentalism. Time magazine named The World Without Us the number one non-fiction book of 2007.”
•“McKibben and many other environmental writers affect an indifference toward, or transcendence of, politics in the ordinary sense, but ultimately cannot conceal their rejection of the liberal tradition. Here we observe the irony of modern environmentalism: the concern for the preservation of unchanged nature has grown in tandem with the steady erosion in our belief in unchanging human nature; the concern for the "rights of nature" has come to embrace a rejection of natural rights for humans. McKibben is one of many current voices (Gore is another) who like to express their environmentalism by decrying "individualism" (McKibben calls it "hyperindividualism").”
•“Al Gore employed the same "communitarian" trope in his first and most famous environmental book, Earth in the Balance (1992), where, in the course of arguing that the environment should be the "central organizing principle" of civilization, he suggested that the problem with individual liberty is that we have too much of it. This preference for soft despotism has become more concrete with the increasing panic over global warming in the past few years. Several environmental authors now argue openly that democracy itself is the obstacle and needs to be abandoned.”
Those who Hayward sees as representing a positive backlash against mainstream environmentalism include Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, the authors of Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility (Houghton Mifflin 2007).
Labels: America, book, climate, consumption, environment, ethics, review
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Science or survivalism?
Perhaps New Scientist should rename itself New Survivalist? The weekly science magazine often comes with a pronounced green tinge.
This week (25 February) includes an editorial and feature on geo-engineering. Sadly it sees it as an emergency “Plan B” rather than as part of a positive conscious effort to manage the climate. Its comment concludes that climate scientists:
“reluctantly acknowledge the sad truth that we haven't managed to reorder the world fast enough to reduce CO2 emissions and that perhaps, given enough funding, research and political muscle, we can indeed design, test and regulate geoengineering projects in time to avert the more horrifying consequences of climate change.”
Its cover story is on “surviving in a warmer world”. It raises the possibility of a “vegetarian dystopia” where only a fraction of the world’s population survive and there has to be a mass migration to areas of high latitude.
Meanwhile, Nature, a more venerable science journal than New Scientist, has a special Recession watch section in its 18 February issue.
Sadly several of the contributors have environmentalist sympathies. It would probably be best if Nature stuck to natural science rather than entertaining often dubious social theories. There are plenty of other places to read contemporary economic ideas.
This week (25 February) includes an editorial and feature on geo-engineering. Sadly it sees it as an emergency “Plan B” rather than as part of a positive conscious effort to manage the climate. Its comment concludes that climate scientists:
“reluctantly acknowledge the sad truth that we haven't managed to reorder the world fast enough to reduce CO2 emissions and that perhaps, given enough funding, research and political muscle, we can indeed design, test and regulate geoengineering projects in time to avert the more horrifying consequences of climate change.”
Its cover story is on “surviving in a warmer world”. It raises the possibility of a “vegetarian dystopia” where only a fraction of the world’s population survive and there has to be a mass migration to areas of high latitude.
Meanwhile, Nature, a more venerable science journal than New Scientist, has a special Recession watch section in its 18 February issue.
Sadly several of the contributors have environmentalist sympathies. It would probably be best if Nature stuck to natural science rather than entertaining often dubious social theories. There are plenty of other places to read contemporary economic ideas.
Labels: climate, consumption, economics, food, geo-engineering, science
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Austerity Watch: frugal as the new cool
In response to my request for suggestions for my Austerity Watch column a friend sent me a link to a useful article from the 4 January edition of the British Observer newspaper. In it Paul Harris reported from New York on how luxury is increasingly being considered shameful. Among its useful points and references:
* The identification of a new cultural trend dubbed “luxury shame”.
* A column by Bob Herbert in the New York Times on 26 December 2008 headlined “Stop Being Stupid”. It concludes: “we need to start living within our means and get past the nauseating idea that the essence of our culture and the be-all and end-all of the American economy is the limitless consumption of trashy consumer goods.”
* A rash of new movies bashing bankers is coming out. On 27 February The International, starring Clive Owen, will be released in Britain. According to the summary on the Internet Movie Database: “Interpol Agent Louis Salinger and Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Eleanor Whitman are determined to bring to justice one of the world's most powerful banks. Uncovering illegal activities including money laundering, arms trading, and the destabilization of governments, Salinger and Whitman's investigation takes them from Berlin to Milan to New York and to Istanbul. Finding themselves in a high-stakes chase across the globe, their relentless tenacity puts their own lives at risk as the bank will stop at nothing - even murder - to continue financing terror and war.”
Meanwhile, I have added “Austerity Watch” tags to some of my earlier blog posts. It reminded me that many of the arguments for austerity now being pitched in terms of the economic crisis were not long ago related to climate change.
* The identification of a new cultural trend dubbed “luxury shame”.
* A column by Bob Herbert in the New York Times on 26 December 2008 headlined “Stop Being Stupid”. It concludes: “we need to start living within our means and get past the nauseating idea that the essence of our culture and the be-all and end-all of the American economy is the limitless consumption of trashy consumer goods.”
* A rash of new movies bashing bankers is coming out. On 27 February The International, starring Clive Owen, will be released in Britain. According to the summary on the Internet Movie Database: “Interpol Agent Louis Salinger and Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Eleanor Whitman are determined to bring to justice one of the world's most powerful banks. Uncovering illegal activities including money laundering, arms trading, and the destabilization of governments, Salinger and Whitman's investigation takes them from Berlin to Milan to New York and to Istanbul. Finding themselves in a high-stakes chase across the globe, their relentless tenacity puts their own lives at risk as the bank will stop at nothing - even murder - to continue financing terror and war.”
Meanwhile, I have added “Austerity Watch” tags to some of my earlier blog posts. It reminded me that many of the arguments for austerity now being pitched in terms of the economic crisis were not long ago related to climate change.
Labels: Austerity Watch, climate, consumption, economics, film, finance
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Greens harness pester power
A worrying article in the Observer on how the authorities are trying to influence adults to accept environmentalist values by promoting green ideas to children. Although green types often complain about the use of child “pester power” in relation to consumer goods it seems they are happy about it in relation to their dubious ideology.
Labels: climate, consumption, environment
Downbeat on geo-engineering
Articles in the Economist and New Scientist take a downbeat view of the prospects for geo-engineering – using large scale engineering projects to modify the climate. Perhaps not surprising since both refer to the same study – among others - on the subject by Tim Lenton of the University of East Anglia in the Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions.
Labels: climate, environment, geo-engineering, science, technology
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: Austerity Watch, 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
