Ferraris for all

Worldwrite’s latest Worldbytes television programme includes an item with me talking about global inequality. Other stories include challenging China bashing, a scientist talks about waste and an alien’s take on carbon footprints.

Labels: china, development, environment, footprint, inequality, media appearances, Worldwrite

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).

Labels: climate, environment, geo-engineering

An interesting article by Sameer Panya in Miller McCune on apocalyptic visions in movies, popular books and TV. Examples he points to include the Dark Knight (the latest Batman movie - evidently shows the Joker trying to destroy the world for sheer pleasure), Wall-E (see my post of 21 July 2008), Battlestar Gallactica (the recent TV version) and Cormac McCarthy’s The Road ( a novel which comes out as a film later this year). Two recent books examine this phenomenon: In Apocalyptic Dread by Kirsten Moana Thompson and Shocking Representation by Adam Lowenstein.

I wrote about apocalpytic visions in non-fiction in my post of 24 April 2008. I also used the introduction from Mad Max II to introduce my recent Fund Strategy feature on oil (see 26 August 2008 post).

Such visions seem to represent, in an extreme form, the fear of the future that is so prevalent at present.

Labels: book, environment, film, television

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.

Labels: climate, consumption, environment, food

There have been several interesting articles and discussions this week but until now I have been too busy to blog them all. Here is a quick round-up:

* Debate on geo-engineering. The Royal Society (Britain’s premier science organisation) has published a series of papers in its Philosophical Transactions on geo-engineering. That in turn prompted a substantial article in the Economist (6 September edition) and a piece by Oliver Tickell (an environmental campaigner) on the Guardian comment is free site supporting geo-engineering but only if it is linked to a reduction in emissions.

* Book on Nazi’s green credentials. I came across this when I heard radio presenters making fun of the title How Green were the Nazis?. To me it is a perfectly reasonable question and the book looks interesting. There is no doubt that many Nazis supported what are today classified as environmental ideas - which does not mean that all environmentalists are Nazis. The most serious critique I could find of the book was in Haaretz (Israel’s leading newspaper).

* Critique of Garrett Hardin’s classic article on “The tragedy of the commons” from a leftist viewpoint. Available here.

* Article on conservative assumptions of organic food movement. Conservative in a literal Burkean sense. Available here.

* Poll on hostility to local development in America, Britain and Canada. Available here.

* James Heartfield on Enron as a pioneer of environmentalism. Based on extracts from his latest book. Available here.

Labels: book, development, economics, environment, finance, food, geo-engineering

Andrew Marr’s Britain From Above documentary series on BBC television was a pleasant surprise. His aerial perspective of Britain, although impressionistic in some respects, enabled him to make some useful thematic points. In particular the episode on “Manmade Britain” argued that Britain’s landscape is entirely shaped by human beings. The patchwork quilt of different coloured fields is a result of industrial agriculture which goes back to the enclosure acts of the early nineteenth century and before. Other influences include urbanisation as well as the creation of “green belts” around British cities (under the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act) and the establishment of national parks from 1949 onwards. Overall Marr argues that man has shaped Britain’s environment for more than 6,000 years. Before that it was almost all wood land.

Labels: cities, environment, television

Tom Friedman, a foreign affairs columnist for the New York Times, is having a new book published in September called Hot, Flat and Crowded. Evidently he argues that America should pursue environmental goals both as a good in itself and because it can help the nation retain its position of world leadership. It sounds like it puts him firmly in the neo-Malthusian camp (for Friedman's earlier work on this theme see post of 15 April 2007).

Labels: America, book, environment, Malthus

Yet more articles on the wet stuff to coincide with World Water Week:

* New Scientist (23 August) has a cover story on water by Jonathan Chenoweth of the University of Surrey. It makes some useful points including the argument that “virtual water” (a term evidently coined by Tony Allan of King’s College, London) can be an efficient way of distributing water resources around the globe. For example, fruit can be grown in a wet country and exported to a particularly dry one. It is probably easier in most cases to ship fruit around than move large quantities of water. Therefore trade allows for the more effiicient allocation of water resources at a global level.

Chenoweth also makes the point that desalination is falling in price. It can now cost as little as 50 cents per 1000 litres. “All but the world’s least developed countries can afford to supplement their water supplies as long as they have a coastline,” he says.

* The August issue of the New Internationalist has several articles on the debate about toilets in the developing countries. Some are in favour of flushing toilets others (perversely) see them as wasteful of scarce resources in developing countries and therefore undesirable there. One article makes the point that celebrity campaigns for clean water by the likes of Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Matt Damon and Chris Martin fail to mention sanitation.

* Brendan O’Neill, the irrepressible editor of spiked, makes the point that demand for humans to be “water wise” is underpinned by shame at our existence.

Labels: celebrities, environment, spiked, technology, water

For time reasons I have so far avoided commenting on Prince Charles’s silly intervention in the debate on genetically modified (GM) foods. But the Comment Is Free article by Paul Collier, the director of the Centre for the Study of African Economies at Oxford University, on the damaging effect of opposition to GM makes many useful points. I have disagreed with Collier on some key issues in the past including his implicit support for empire and his relatively narrow vision (see posts of 14 May 2007, 6 June 2007, 1 July 2007, 20 July 2007 and 15 October 2007). But his support for GM and large scale farming is welcome (also see post of 15 April 2008).

Labels: Africa, environment, food, science, technology

The annual World Water Week in Stockholm seems to be an occasion for an outpouring of panic about global water shortages. BBC Two’s flagship Newsnight programme has already fallen for it (see Monday’s post) and now, not surprisingly given its environmentalist leanings, the Guardian has too. The lead news story in today’s paper gave credence to the World Wildife Fund’s notion of a water footprint and a related leader called for individuals to reduce their water use.

Such demands get reality upside down. As I have argued before it is the shortage of investment in water infrastructure that is the problem. There is no absolute shortage of water. The underlying problem is poverty rather than a particular chemical compound.

It is strange that the stuff of life itself - carbon and water - is being demonised by environmentalists.

Labels: consumption, environment, footprint, water

The BBC2 Newsnight programme this evening completely succumbed to the panic about water shortages. Its underlying assumption was simple: population growth and industrialisation are leading to greater use of this scarce commodity. This in turn is leading to the prospect of conflict and even water wars worldwide.

Sadly none of the studio guests challenged the fetishisation of water. It is wrong to see water as causing conflict – water is just “stuff” – the problem is the lack of investment in infrastructure to ensure everyone has enough water. Nor is it true that water is a finite resource (see, for example, posts of 22 August 2006, 19 October 2006 and 12 March 2008).

Worldwrite is also producing a documentary on this topic called Flush It!. Hopefully it will provide an antidote to such scare-mongering. Its premiere is at the Battle of Ideas festival on 2 November.

Labels: consumption, environment, film, television, water, Worldwrite

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.

Labels: affluenza, America, book, climate, consumption, environment, footprint, inequality, progress, review, sustainability

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

Spiked has published an article by me on how even the most ardent free market economists are losing faith in capitalism.

Labels: economics, environment, globalisation, spiked

Spiegel Online has a substantial article arguing that globalisation, by encouraging overfishing, is destroying the world’s oceans. As it happens even Indur Goklany, an articulate and avid defender of economic development, concedes that overfishing is a problem. But the solution is more systematic farming of the world’s oceans rather than the hunter-gatherer approach that prevails at present.

Labels: consumption, environment, Europe, globalisation, progress

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.

Labels: book, climate, consumption, economics, environment, review, science

Anything that winds up George Monbiot, the Guardian’s most high profile environmental columnist, is worth looking into. He wrote a comment entitled “Hypocrites unite!” in response to a new book by Julie Burchill, a well known British writer, on hypocrisy. Monbiot deployed what could be called the standard hypocrisy defence. In addition to admitting to being a “posh git” (his father was deputy chairman of the Conservative party) he goes on:

“Sure we are hypocrites. Every one of us, almost by definition. Hypocrisy is the gap between your aspirations and your actions. Greens have high aspirations - they want to live more ethically – and they will always fall short. But the alternative to hypocrisy isn’t moral purity (no one manages that) but cynicism.”

This conveniently absolves him of any need for consistency but it is also untrue. Greens are characterised by their low expectations rather than high aspirations. It is their glum view of humanity that leads them to elevate the idea of natural limits to human action. It is hard to imagine a more cynical outlook.

Those who want a more considered critique of green elitism and double standards should read James Heartfield’s book on the subject (see 17 February 2008 post).

Labels: book, environment, ethics

The Wall Street Journal poses an important question in a column on energy published in America yesterday and today in Europe:

“Al Gore said the other day that ‘the future of human civilization’ depends on giving up fossil fuels within a decade -- and was acclaimed as a prophet by the political class. Obviously boring reality doesn't count for much these days. Even so, when Barack Obama wheels out an energy agenda nearly as grandiose as Mr. Gore's, shouldn't it receive at least some media scrutiny?” (original emphasis).

It also comes to a sensible conclusion:

“Consumption isn't rising because of wastefulness. The U.S. produces more than twice as much GDP today per unit of energy as it did in the 1950s, yet energy use has risen threefold. That's because energy use is tethered to growth, and the economy continues to innovate and expand. Mr. Obama seems to have other ideas.”

Despite a common misconception it is not true that energy efficiency means less energy use. On the contrary, it means even more energy can be used.

Labels: America, economics, energy, environment

I am struggling to find a term to describe the angst-ridden mindset of even the most pro-capitalist economists nowadays (see 1 August post). Cheerless cheerleaders? Demand depressives? Moody mentalists? None of these quite captures it. Any ideas please email me.

In the meantime here is a contribution from Willem Buiter, a professor at the London School of Economics and former member of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee, from today’s Financial Times:

“Once the cyclical correction in emerging markets has run its course, I expect growth in those countries to resume at rates that are high but no longer stratospheric. The reason is the environmental constraints on growth in these markets. I am not referring to the (massive) contribution of China and others to global warming, but to the local and regional environmental fall-out from unsustainable industrial and agricultural development: increasing scarcity and rising costs of clean fresh water, clean air and soil that is fit for humans. When the last athlete hobbles out of the polluted Olympic Games of Beijing, black-lunged and gasping for oxygen, there is likely to be a reassessment of what is sustainable growth in China. Even totalitarian regimes require, if not the consent, at least the acquiescence of the populace. Double-digit rates of growth are a thing of the past.”

His article concludes:

“So how bad will things get? After the slowdown/recession has corrected the excesses of the past decade, prospects for the overdeveloped part of the world are quite reasonable, as long as material aspirations moderate in line with modest prospects for sustained growth in standards of living. For emerging and developing countries at the right end of the commodity boom, the potential for prosperity is there, as long as the resource curse is avoided. For poorer countries at the wrong end of the commodity boom, the combination of the terms-of-trade shock and acute environmental challenge will make life very difficult.”

I was particularly struck by the reference to the "overdeveloped" parts of the world.

Pass the prozac!

Labels: consumption, economics, environment, growth, water

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.

Labels: climate, environment, geo-engineering, radio, science

Eric Rolston, an American science writer, has written a fascinating sounding book on carbon. Despite its sensationalist sub-title – “how life’s core element has become civilization’s greatest threat” – The Carbon Age rightly makes the point that carbon is the building block of life. Despite the element’s key role in the natural world it is strangely seen as a great threat to humanity nowadays.

Labels: book, energy, environment, science

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.

Labels: climate, environment, review, science, spiked, television

A piece on the happiness debate in the Christian Science Monitor (22 July) is blisteringly one-sided. It quotes many of the most prominent advocates of the view that wealth does not bring happiness but no one to put the alternative perspective. The usual suspects quoted include Bill McKibben (author of Deep Economy) and Nic Marks of the New Economics Foundation among others. There are also the customary references to the World Values Survey, the Happy Planet Index and Bhutan.

The most interesting point is by Martin Seligman of the University of Pennsylvania. He divides the pursuit of happiness into three categories: seeking positive emotion, or feeling good; engagement with others; and meaning, or participating in something larger than oneself.

Labels: consumption, environment, happiness

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.

Labels: climate, environment, geo-engineering

James Woudhuysen, in a programme on BBC Radio 4 and an accompanying article on spiked, contrasts nineteenth century greens with those of today. For Woudhuysen nineteenth-century romantic poets such as John Clare, Samuel Coleridge and William Wordsworth at least had an idea of human transcendence:

“Altogether, we can forgive much in the nineteenth-century greens. At least they were confronting industrialisation in its infancy and adolescence: though their reactions were often impulsive, they retained a basic faith in humanity. By contrast, today’s environmentalists are so weary and ignorant about industrialisation, they seem only able to condemn it, and all the human beings they deem perpetrators of the process.”

Labels: environment, spiked

You can see me talking about China and the environment at the recent Battle for China conference by clicking the link.

Labels: china, development, environment, media appearances, television

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.

Labels: climate, economics, environment, Fund Strategy

Evidently Wall-E, a new animated movie from Pixar, argues if we do not curb our consumption we will destroy the world. According to an article in Slate critics have widely welcomed the outlook it expresses:

“So what is this powerful and profound message? Wall-E tells us that if we don't change the way we live, we'll all get really fat and destroy the world. The plot begins with the idea that a megacorporation called Buy N Large has essentially taken over the planet and induced so much consumption and waste that humans must escape their dying planet on an enormous, space-faring cruise ship. Once onboard, their self-destructive tendencies only get worse: After 700 years adrift, humans have grown too bloated to walk and too lazy to think.”

Labels: consumption, environment, film

There is nothing inherently radical about the current obsession with eating right. In American Conservative (30 June 2008) a right winger reclaims it for his tradition. “Crunchy Cons” are a well established phenomenon (see post of 15 August 2006).

Labels: consumption, environment, food

Some last minute preparation for my Battle for China session on China as a “green peril”. An article by Elizabeth Economy and Adam Segal in Foreign Affairs (July / August 2008) argues that China’s inability to provide safe food and clean air for the Beijing Olympics shows its political weakness. And a Newsweek cover story on measuring global environmental progress includes a piece arguing that China lags behind other countries with similar income levels.

Labels: china, development, environment, speeches

Following Sunday’s post the Guardian has launched a comment series on “the green squeeze”. In motivating the series it asks: “Will the credit crunch usher in a green backlash, as people abandon environmentalism in favour of what they consider more pressing economic concerns, and how should the green movement respond? Throughout the week, leading thinkers assess the lessons of history and the changing tactics necessary to deliver their agenda during a recession.”

My answers are (a) no, people will not abandon environmentalism (b) it is a pity. Environmentalism represents an outlook that favours austerity so is well suited to a period of economic restraint.

Labels: consumption, economics, environment

The following comment by me appeared in today’s issue of Fund Strategy:

The trend towards the "greening of Asia" represents one of the most retrograde developments of our time. Asia has benefited enormously from its rapid economic growth and could gain a lot more in the future. Anything that threatens such growth should be resisted staunchly.

It is only because of the deeply pessimistic times we live in that the greening of Asia is taken seriously. The benefits of growth tend to be grossly under-appreciated while the prospect of environmental damage prompts panic.

From the relative comfort of a developed nation it is easy to forget how beneficial growth has proved. Among other things it has led to greatly improved longevity, lower infant mortality, increased education, vastly better infrastructure, more consumer goods and more leisure time.

Yet much of Asia remains relatively poor. Even China, although it has grown rapidly over the past 30 years, still has much lower income per head than developed economies.

Under such circumstances, growth should remain a top priority. If the region chooses to use "dirty energy", rather than go to the extra expense of "going green", it should be free to do so. Fossil fuels are legitimate ways of meeting Asia's energy needs.

As it happens, growth generally provides the resources to clean up the environment. Typically, countries go through an "environmental transition" as they industrialise.

The early days of industrialisation are often heavily polluting. But as the economy grows it becomes able to generate the resources to produce goods and services more cleanly.

The developed world has already experienced this transition. America and Britain produce more than ever in absolute terms, yet the environment is generally much cleaner than it was in the earlier industrial period.

If the developed world is that worried about dirty energy it can always provide the latest technology to developing countries. No doubt if it is freely or even just cheaply available to them they are likely to make good use of it.

But it is important not to lose sight of the over-riding importance of growth. It would be wrong, from both an economic and moral perspective, to impose the use of particular technologies deemed "green" in the West.

Labels: Asia, environment, Fund Strategy

Evidently Fareed Zakaria, one of America’s most influential commentators on international relations, expresses concern about the impact of China’s economic growth on the global environment in his new book. Although he welcomes poverty reduction in China he is concerned that rapid growth will lead to such problems as climate change and water shortages. According to Sean Collins writing in the latest spiked review of books:

“In viewing growth as problematic and potentially destructive, Zakaria raises a common theme of our time. Rather than celebrate the benefits of growth, such as a reduction in poverty, Zakaria and others emphasise the downsides that accompany development. This gloomy outlook reveals more about the commentator than the reality on the ground. Zakaria refers to the predicted increase in the number of cars in China from 26million to 120million in 2020 as an environmental problem rather than a cause of celebration, as the Chinese people gain greater freedom of movement. In doing so, Zakaria joins in with today’s growing China-bashing chorus.”

Labels: America, climate, environment, review, spiked

I will be speaking at a session on China and the environment at the Battle for China event on 12 July in London.

Labels: Asia, china, economics, environment, speeches

The May edition of Scientific American includes a useful primer on the ethics and economics of climate change by John Broome. It includes references to further discussion of the subject by the likes of William Nordhaus, the IPCC and Nicholas Stern. The New York Review of Books (12 June) has also recently carried an article by Freeman Dyson that touches on similar themes.

Personally I do not see the emphasis on potential conflicts of interest between present and future generations as useful. It seems to me the best we can do for future generations is to encourage as much development as possible.

Labels: climate, economics, environment, ethics

Adair Turner, to take up the position of chairman of Britain’s Financial Services Authority (FSA - the main financial regulator) in September, is an archetype “eco-toff”. He is a multi-millionaire member of the establishment with strong environmentalist leanings:

* Toff: chairman of the Cambridge University Conservative Association (later defected to the Social Democratic Party during its brief existence), president of the Cambridge Union, a consultant at McKinsey, director general of the Confederation of British Industry, member of the House of Lords and now FSA chairman.

* Eco: trustee of the World Wildlife Fund and has an organic farm.

His wife, Orna Ni-Chionna, also fits the mould. She graduated from Harvard Business School and did a stint at McKinsey. Now she is chair of the Soil Association (which promotes organic farming) and a director of Northern Foods (brands include Goodfella’s pizza and Fox’s biscuits, it also makes many food products for retailers using their own labels).

Turner’s 2001 book, Just Capital, advocated a “middle way” between free market economics and socialism.

Labels: consumption, environment, finance

Martin Wolf, the chief economics commentator of the Financial Times, argued in a feature in yesterday’s paper that sustaining economic growth is the century’s big challenge.

The article, which was partly a review of the new book by Jeffrey Sachs and partly a discussion of the recent growth commission report, started by asking:

“Is it possible for the vast mass of humanity to enjoy the living standards of today’s high-income countries? This is, arguably, the biggest question confronting humanity in the 21st century. It is today’s version of the doubts expressed by Thomas Malthus, two centuries ago, about the possibility of enduring rises in living standards. On the answer depends the destiny of our progeny. It will determine whether this will be a world of hope rather than despair and of peace rather than conflict.”

As a free marketeer Wolf says that his inclination is to argue that problems raised by economic development can be resolved. But later on he admits to developing some sympathy with environmentalism:

“it has become evident, at least to me, that the human impact on the planet on which we depend has risen to enormous proportions. We have treated the global commons as if they were free. Self-evidently, they are not.”

Evidently free marketeers cannot be relied upon to give an unequivocal defence of economic growth.

Labels: development, economics, environment, growth, Malthus, progress

Tonight watched the Life after people documentary on Channel 4. It was based on an interesting thought experiment: what would happen to the earth if humans suddenly disappeared. The documentary looked at the Earth at different time periods of humanity’s disappearance to see how long signs of humanity would survive. No doubt many environmentalists would see it as showing that humanity is simply a thin veneer on the surface of the earth – nature would quickly reclaim the planet. But it would also be possible to wonder at how much humans have reshaped the planet in their relatively short time on Earth. Josie Appleton also wrote a review article on the same subject for spiked last year.

Last night I watched the 11th Hour, a 2007 environmentalist documentary presented and produced by Leonardo DiCaprio, on Channel 4. The programme was predictably awful but at least it had the virtue of spelling out some of the misanthropic (and often absurd) premises of environmentalist thought. For example, the view that humans are simply part of nature, the hostility to attempts to control nature, the idea that nature should somehow be endowed with rights and the notion of eco-systems services.

Labels: celebrities, environment, film, spiked

Last year the New York Times ran a series of articles on pollution in China entitled “Choking on growth”. Today Nicholas Kristof, a regular Times columnist, has a comment headlined “Where breathing is deadly”. No prizes for guessing which country he was talking about.

Kristof refers to one of the earlier articles which estimates that between 300,000 and 400,000 Chinese die prematurely every year as a result of pollution. These estimates could well be accurate but, as is often the case with statistics, they can be misleading in isolation. No doubt a rugged statistical model could be constructed to show that many millions of Chinese die every year as a result of poverty. If China had living standards and infrastructure on the same level as the richest countries no doubt its people would live longer and healthier lives.

To be fair to Kristof he does add some balance to his article: “China has been better than most other countries in curbing pollution, paying attention to the environment at a much earlier stage of development than the United States, Europe or Japan. Most impressive, in 2004, China embraced tighter fuel economy standards than the Bush administration was willing to accept at the time.”

Labels: china, development, environment

I am hardly a regular reader of Marie Claire but I was struck by how its June eco-chic edition managed to combine environmentalism, beauty and celebrity. Amid the adverts for brands such as D&G, Estee Lauder and Clinique are Cate Blanchett endorsing Marie Claire’s campaign to stop global warming, profiles of Hollywood stars turned eco-campaigners (including Gwyneth Paltrow, Jake Gyllenhaal and Julia Roberts) and an interview with Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall.

I was particularly amused by the “Message from our associates” at coolaworld:

“Just being cool is a beautifully simple way to save the planet”.

“Being cool means having a passionate relationship with the world around you, a growing awareness of where things come from and how they arrive. Being cool is shopping to save the planet, saying yes to tap water and no to excess packaging. Being cool is ‘Fashion without Heart’ and food without air miles and, because it helps you feel good about the environment, being cool will always be considered stylish and smart.”

If such self-obsession is considered “cool” then I’m all in favour of some warming.

Labels: celebrities, consumption, environment, film, food

I have been sidetracked for the past week so no time for blogging. Hopefully this will now change. However, two things worth catching up on:

- Attended the launch of the Prix Pictet photographic competition last Tuesday (29 April). It is a new photographic awarded focusing on sustainability with Kofi Annan, a former UN secretary general, as its honorary president. It also has the endorsement of Gro Harlem Brundtland, a special envoy to the UN on climate change. This year’s theme is water.

The PR stunt at the start of the event gives some flavour of what it was about. All of those attending were given a clear glass bottle with a little water in it and the name of a country. Mine had a tag on it saying “Ghana” and a note saying the average daily domestic water consumption was 27 litres per head which was equivalent to five minutes in an ordinary shower. What is this bizarre counter-position meant to mean? Perhaps that by having a shower in Britain we are depriving ordinary Ghanaians of water? Or that water is a scarce resource? (see post of 12 March 2008).

- Michael Fitzpatrick wrote a pithy critique of the mainstream happiness discussion in an article (30 April) on spiked on the contemporary obsession with healthy living:

“Having replaced heaven (in either terrestrial or celestial forms) as the goal of human existence, health has been reduced to the anatomical and physiological functions of the human organism. The highest aspiration of the modern individual is biological survival, complemented by the state of bovine contentment celebrated as ‘happiness’ by government advisers, a condition to be achieved by making healthy lifestyle choices, appropriately corrected by short courses of cognitive behaviour therapy.

“For Aristotle a true state of health meant a ‘flourishing life’, not merely in terms of prolonging our bodily existence, but in terms of personal achievement. What matters is not merely feeling good about ourselves, but living and acting well. Happiness is the result of human activity in the world, it is not just a state of mind, and even less mere animal fitness.”

Labels: consumption, development, environment, happiness, sustainability

Why are environmentalists obsessed with the idea of apocalypse? Rebecca Onion, a writer based in Texas, discusses the question in an article in Slate. She points to contemporary authors such as James Howard Kunstler and Alan Weisman as examples of the trend. But the strain of thought emerged in the 1970s with the likes of Edward Abbey and Philip Wylie. As Onion argues:

“While the enviros of the 1970s worried about population, we worry about climate change, but the possibilities for post-crisis humanity remain rosy. Kunstler's glorious images of ripped-up strip malls and catamounts in empty houses echo Weisman's regenerating landscapes, and both recall the new eco-orders of Abbey and Wiley. In the perfect green apocalypse, population reduction leaves a world in which everybody wins—birds, bees, and people.”

Thanks to James Heartfield’s Facebook entry for the Slate reference. Meanwhile, I notice George Monbiot has a new book out: Bring on the Apocalypse. I have not seen it yet but it sounds like a collection of Monbiot’s’ misanthropic articles.

Labels: book, environment

I have belatedly discovered a BBC Radio 4 Analysis programme, presented by Kenan Malik, on climate change. The programme, broadcast earlier this month, also included James Woudhuysen.

Labels: climate, environment

It is sad that New Scientist magazine seems to have swallowed environmentalist prejudices whole. The editorial in the latest issue (5 April) is a defence of The Limits to Growth, a key 1972 report arguing that there are natural limits to economic growth. It describes the report as warning that with growing population and an expanding economy “resources would eventually run out”. In fact the report argued that many key resources would run out within a few years. It proved spectacularly wrong.

The cover story is on “the collapse of civilisation”. It builds on the work of Jared Diamond: best-selling environmentalist author and purveyor of the idea that the agricultural revolution was the worst mistake in human history. The basic argument is that that more complex society becomes the worse things could get if it breaks down.

Perhaps we should all be living in mud huts isolated from the rest of humanity? That way if our neighbours encountered problems we could be immune!

Labels: consumption, economics, environment, growth

Fund Strategy has run my review of James Heartfield’s Green Capitalism in today’s issue.

Terms such as "ethical", "responsible" and "environmentally friendly" are used so often nowadays in the investment world that it almost seems churlish to question them. Who would want to present themselves as unethical, irresponsible or hostile to the environment?

Yet James Heartfield, a writer and lecturer based in London, puts a strong case for such terms to be interrogated. In "Green Capitalism" he argues that the rise of environmentalism and green consumerism are entirely negative trends. His logic is compelling even though it runs directly counter to the spirit of the times.

Heartfield's starting point is that the global elite is facing its worst nightmare: cornucopia. Until recently the history of humanity was one of living in conditions of scarcity. But the virtual abolition of scarcity, at least in the developed West, has radically changed perceptions. The elite feels a desperate need to recreate scarcity artificially just as developed economies have overcome its constraints.

The origins of contemporary environmentalism go back to the economic crisis of the mid-1970s. At that time the Club of Rome, an organisation of top industrialists, sponsored a high-profile report on "The Limits to Growth". It argued that the world economy was increasingly coming up against natural limits - although its predictions have proved ridiculously pessimistic over time. The backdrop to the report was the combination of economic crisis and industrial militancy of the time. Under such circumstances this early form of environmentalism helped make cuts in wages and a reduction in popular living standards more acceptable.

More recently, two developments have helped popularise green thinking. The first is what Heartfield calls "the retreat from production". With the abolition of scarcity it became easier to prioritise other forms of economic activity besides industry. Financial markets took on an enormous importance; most strikingly in Britain.

Notions such as brands and the New Economy were elevated to the status of key concepts. Industry, in contrast, was increasingly viewed with disdain. It was often more associated with emerging economies, notably China and India, than the developed West.

The second development was the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. This deprived the ruling elite of a focus as anti-communism had long played an important unifying role for the Western powers. It also led many disorientated radicals to support environmentalism.

This combination of factors has had perverse results. In particular it has meant that a misplaced belief in natural limits has come to the fore. For Heartfield there is no real shortage of natural resources in the world. Instead there is an ever increasing manufacturing of scarcity by the ruling elite.

An excellent contemporary example of this trend is the retirement of land from production. "Green Capitalism" points out that almost 19m square kilometres of land, more than the combined area of China and South-East Asia, are classified as protected. This amount has grown more than sevenfold since 1962.

Heartfield argues that this is the main cause of rising food prices. It is a problem of an artificial constraint on supply rather than growing consumer demand. The increasing area of land devoted to growing crops for biofuel is tiny in relative terms. If even a small proportion of "protected" land were harnessed for agricultural production, it is likely food prices would fall dramatically.

The trend towards organic food also helps to exacerbate rising prices. Since yields from organic farming are low - by definition it shuns modern farming methods - land cannot be used efficiently. Although the total consumption of organic food is relatively small, its popularity illustrates the disdain of the green elite for economic efficiency.

A particular irony is that the richest people in the world, in other words those who consume the most resources, tend to be the greenest. In Britain this includes the likes of Zac Goldsmith of the Ecologist magazine (an Old Etonian and an heir to the Goldsmith family fortune) and Lord Peter Melchett (another Etonian, and director of the Soil Association). In America the mould is set by Al Gore (the son of a senator and the owner of three homes, including a 20-room mansion).

It is tempting but misleading to accuse such people of hypocrisy. It would be closer to the mark to describe them as elitists. Their objection is not to consumption itself but to mass consumption. They see no problem with their own considerable appetite for resources but they believe that popular consumption is constrained by natural limits.

Indeed, this elitist view of consumption, Heartfield argues, is embodied more generally in green consumerism. The main role of green products - whether organic tomatoes or GM-free soya - is what he calls "status affirmation". It is to mark the green consumer out from the bulk of society. In that way the green consumer can happily use resources while distancing himself from the consumption of the mainstream. Such expressions of ethics are in reality declarations of moral superiority. Their importance is symbolic rather than practical.

Another common expression of disdain for ordinary people, in Heartfield's view, is the attitude greens typically take to the most valuable resource of all: human time. Their admonitions to recycle, not use standby buttons and save energy are free of any concerns for the time such actions take for the average household. Ordinary people are expected to expend enormous amounts of their energy on useless gestures.

It is a shame that "Green Capitalism" is not more widely available. Although its arguments are often counter-intuitive they represent a powerful critique of the pervasive outlook of environmentalism. An unexpected bonus is that it also provides insights into practical issues such as the surge in food prices.

Fortunately, through the power of the internet, it should be possible for those readers who are interested to get hold of a copy.

Labels: book, consumption, economics, environment, review

Last week’s (15 March) Economist seemed to confirm some of the points I made in my recent spiked article about China being viewed as a “green peril”. The front cover branded China as the “new colonialists” for its hunger for natural resources. The headline of one of the articles on its survey of China’s use of natural resources was “the perils of abundance” and declared that “China must learn to do more with less”. Fortunately the main body copy was not quite as unbalanced but it shows the limits of the Economist’s supposed free market critique of environmentalism.

Labels: china, environment

Now that it is the Easter holidays I can catch up on some of the supposedly great issues of our time. The first is plastic bags. In Britain the campaign against these useful items has had the support of Gordon Brown, the prime minister, and the Daily Mail newspaper. However, Dick Taverne of Sense About Science has exposed how the campaign against them is based on faulty science. In addition, Angus Kennedy has written on spiked about how the hysterical campaign against plastic bags is causing job losses in the East.

Labels: consumption, environment, science

Jeffrey Sachs has a new book out. Yet, judging by an extract in Time magazine (24 March), Common Wealth for a Crowded Planet repeats many of the themes of his previous work (see links to “my reviews” in the left hand column):

“The defining challenge of the 21st century will be to face the reality that humanity shares a common fate on a crowded planet. We have reached the beginning of the century with 6.6 billion people living in an interconnected global economy producing an astounding $60 trillion of output each year. Human beings fill every ecological niche on the planet, from the icy tundra to the tropical rain forests to the deserts. In some locations, societies have outstripped the carrying capacity of the land, resulting in chronic hunger, environmental degradation and a large-scale exodus of desperate populations. We are, in short, in one another's faces as never before, crowded into an interconnected society of global trade, migration, ideas and, yes, risk of pandemic diseases, terrorism, refugee movements and conflict.

“We also face a momentous choice. Continue on our current course, and the world is likely to experience growing conflicts between haves and have-nots, intensifying environmental catastrophes and downturns in living standards caused by interlocking crises of energy, water, food and violent conflict. Yet for a small annual investment of world income, undertaken cooperatively across the world, our generation can harness new technologies for clean energy, reliable food supplies, disease control and the end of extreme poverty.”

Although he does not say it explicitly his argument is that there are natural limits to economic growth. The best we can hope for is to eradicate