Ferraris for all

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.

Labels: climate, development, progress, technology

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.

Labels: climate, consumption, economics, environment, growth, technology

Belatedly caught up with the BBC TV Horizon programme on Jimmy’s GM Food Fight (as I write there are still 23 days left to watch it on BBC iPlayer). It provided an unexpectedly good primer to the debate about genetically modified (GM) crops (or GMOs as they are known in America). The presenter was Jimmy Doherty, a traditional farmer with a PhD in entomology, who also presented the informative Jimmy Doherty’s Farming Heroes (see 20 July 2008 post).

Doherty did a good job of explaining the basics of GM. For instance, he pointed out that selective breeding of plants has existed for literally thousands of years. He pointed out that crops such as broccoli, Brussels sprouts cauliflower, Kohlrabi and numerous varieties of modern cabbages were all bred from the wild cabbage. GM technology merely provides a more efficient way of breeding.

He also pointed to other advantages of GM technology. These include modifying plants to improve their qualities by making them, for instance, more drought resistant or disease resistant. Such modifications can mean that less pesticides are required to growth them. It is also possible to use GM technology to enhance the nutritional value of food.

Doherty also allowed the critics of GM, based mainly in Europe, to have a voice. Lord Peter Melchett, a British environmental campaigner, voiced his opposition to GM mainly on the grounds of the uncertainties involved in relation to the environment and human health. Yet despite professed concern about “uncertainties” such campaigners, including Melchett himself, have destroyed experiments to determine the qualities of GM crops.

The programme also contained a couple of surprises:

• An interview with an Amish farmer who – despite eschewing mechanised tractors – happily used GM crops. The programme also pointed out that 80% of corn, cotton and soya production in America is GM. GM technology has been used in dozens of countries for over a decade.

• An interview with the head of a research unit in Uganda experimenting on using GM technology to counter a fungus that is decimating the country’s vital banana crop. The unit has high security but, unlike in Europe, its aim is not to keep anti-GM protestors out. The fences and barbed wire are designed to keep out Ugandan farmers who desperately want to plant the crops rather than await the results of time-consuming trials.

Labels: consumption, food, health, science, technology, television

Some genuinely excellent news. A European medical team has transplanted a windpipe made from a patient’s own stem cells. This avoids the greatest difficulty in relation to transplants - overcoming the problem of rejection.

No doubt such techniques will take time to develop fully but they should not be held up by moralistic opposition to stem cell research or by excessive caution.

Labels: health, technology

Jeffrey Sachs’ call for a government bail-out of General Motors, the most troubled of America’s car-makers, in yesterday’s Washington Post is in line with the drive for a “green new deal” (see 7 November 2008 post). He concludes his article by arguing:

“We face an unprecedented financial calamity, energy crisis and environmental threat. A vibrant, growing U.S. automobile industry should play an essential role in solving all three. The technologies that will win the day are in sight; industry has already made important advances. A partnership with government is vital and should begin this week.”

Labels: America, economics, energy, environment, technology

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.

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

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.

Labels: climate, environment, technology

India’s lunar programme should be welcomed. India is sending an unmanned space probe to the moon and in the course of it explore the possibility of bringing helium 3 – the ideal fuel for nuclear fusion – back to earth.

It was inevitable that many would sneer at such a mission when India is still mired in poverty. But it is wrong to counter-pose missions such as India’s space programme with economic development. On the contrary, the same bold ambitious attitude is required of both.

Randeep Ramesh, the Guardian’s south Asia correspondent, claims he is not against the mission in principle but sees it as precocious:

“India is a nation with a proliferating development needs – the global hunger index ranks it below Laos and Burkina Faso. Hundreds of millions of Indians still openly defecate in fields, at roadsides and beside train tracks. Common tropical diseases easily overwhelm the country's poorly-funded public health system. Its roads, railways and airports all need money and managerial overhauls.”

He misses the point that looking to the stars cultivates the right attitude to solve problems on earth too.

Labels: Asia, energy, india, inequality, science, technology

The introduction to the following story shows how mobile phones can be used to raise productivity in poorer countries. I should emphasise I have no personal interest in Thomson Reuters!

“CHANDIGARH, India, Oct. 21 /PRNewswire/ -- Thomson Reuters today announced that it has expanded its ground-breaking mobile information service for India's agricultural community to Punjab. Reuters Market Light, which brings commodity prices, crop and weather data to Indian farmers via mobile phone, launched today with over 3,000 subscribers signed up in Punjab, the birthplace of Green Revolution in India.”

Labels: development, food, technology

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.

Labels: America, apocalyptic, climate, environment, technology

I have not posted for a few days because I’ve been at a conference in Dubai and have also had to follow the market mayhem. I hope to write a piece about recent market developments over the weekend – arguing that share price movements are a poor indicator of economic health – but in the meantime a quick thought on Dubai.

Before visiting the emirate I was struck by how many people – most of whom have never been there – told me it was awful. No doubt there are genuine grounds for criticism. For example, its lack of democracy and its unequal treatment of migrant workers. But what most people seem to dislike is precisely what is good about it: its modernity. The critics seem to hate the fact that it has created gleaming, modern buildings out of what was until recently desert. In other words they are criticising precisely what is the best thing about Dubai. It is akin to an aristocrat, who perhaps is not as affluent as he once was, sneering at what they regard as the vulgarity of the new rich.

Labels: development, economics, modernity, technology

According to the International Communications Union the number of mobile phone users worldwide should reach about four billion by the end of 2008. That is 61% of the world’s population against only 12% in 2000.

That is a fantastic achievement for global development. The quicker it reaches 100% the better. As I have consistently argued it is vital to have a balanced view on progress towards development. There is a huge amount still to do but we should also recognise what we have already achieved.

Labels: development, technology

Jeffrey Sachs writes in an article for Project Syndicate on the spread of mobile phones in the world’s poorer countries:

“market penetration in poor countries is rising sharply. India has around 300 million subscribers, with subscriptions rising by a stunning eight million or more per month. Brazil now has more than 130 million subscribers, and Indonesia has roughly 120 million. In Africa, which contains the world’s poorest countries, the market is soaring, with more than 280 million subscribers.

“Mobile phones are now ubiquitous in villages as well as cities. If an individual does not have a cell phone, they almost surely know someone who does. Probably a significant majority of Africans have at least emergency access to a cell phone, either their own, a neighbor’s, or one at a commercial kiosk.

“Even more remarkable is the continuing “convergence” of digital information: wireless systems increasingly link mobile phones with the Internet, personal computers, and information services of all kinds. The array of benefits is stunning. The rural poor in more and more of the world now have access to wireless banking and payments systems, such as Kenya’s famous M-PESA system, which allows money transfers through the phone. The information carried on the new networks spans public health, medical care, education, banking, commerce, and entertainment, in addition to communications among family and friends.”

Labels: Africa, development, india, Latin America, progress, technology

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 following review by me appeared in this week’s Fund Strategy.

Robert Reich blames big business and technological progress for the erosion of democracy. But his flawed thesis is self-serving and - worryingly - he calls for a lowering of living standards.

Supercapitalism is about a fundamental schism in contemporary society. Robert Reich, a professor at Berkeley and labor secretary under President Bill Clinton, argues that big business is increasingly undermining democracy. Although people have benefited enormously as consumers and investors from this trend they are losing out in their capacity as citizens. His understated conclusion is that people should be pushed into accepting falls in living standards in return for greater democracy.

Reich's critique of contemporary capitalism is more sophisticated than many. He eschews explanations that simply attack human greed or slate conservative politicians. Reich also acknowledges that the recent era of big business has brought some substantial benefits.

But Reich's confusion of basic categories leads him to serious errors and damaging political conclusions. The key development to understand is the demise of the role of humans as producers rather than the rise of consumption. To the extent that consumption has become more important it is largely through default. The striking trend of the past 30 years is in the reduction in importance attached to humanity's productive role.

This productive side of humanity should not be understood simply in terms of making widgets. It needs to be put more broadly in the context of what might be called "the human subject": the capacity of people to make and remake the world around them. The diminished sense of human subjectivity, rather than the rise in importance of consumption, is the key to understanding the trends identified by Reich.

Reich's notion of supercapitalism has to be set against the "not quite golden age" of 1945-75. That period embodied many of the values that he holds dear: it was an era of relative equality, job security and trust. There was also a compact between labour unions and big business. Yet Reich is balanced enough to acknowledge it was far from perfect. For example, women and minorities suffered severe discrimination.

For Reich this set-up began to break down in the second half of the 1970s. New technology increased competition between corporations. This in turn led to a new era of globalisation, new production techniques and deregulation.

He acknowledges that the new era has brought enormous benefits. Thanks largely to innovations in medical science the average American lives almost 15 years longer than in 1950. Americans are also rich and have a far wider range of consumer choices than in the 1970s. Other countries too have benefited from similar developments.

However, many of the positive features of the not quite golden age have gone too. Societies have become more unequal, job security has diminished and trust in politicians has disappeared. Corporations through their incessant lobbying have, in Reich's view, undermined the democratic process.

Against those who argue that conservative politicians, such as Ronald Reagan in America or Margaret Thatcher in Britain, are to blame for this shift Reich points out (correctly) that the shift predates their time in office. Reagan was president from 1981-89 while Thatcher was prime minister from 1979-1990 yet the shift started in the 1970s. Both leaders simply intensified an attack on the post-War consensus, particularly in relation to unions, that had started before their time in office.

However, in relation to this point Reich seems to be suffering from a temporary memory lapse. The attack on the consensus in America started in earnest under the presidency of Jimmy Carter (1977-81). It was under Carter's presidency that Reich himself was a political appointee at the Federal Trade Commission. Reich does not deny his position but is shy of drawing any conclusions about the role of the Democrats in breaking the consensus. In Britain the Labour government of 1974-9 played a similar role in launching an assault on unions and destroying post-War institutions.

More broadly the way to understand this shift is as a response to the end of the post-War boom. After the second world war the world economy, particularly the developed countries, grew at record rates. But by the early 1970s signs of economic crisis were clear. This lead governments on both sides of the Atlantic to launch an assault on the unions and give much freer rein to business.

This trend in turn meant that ordinary people had much less of a say in their lives. Politics was no longer about competing camps or competing visions of how to organise society. Instead the era of "Tina" - as Thatcher put it "There Is No Alternative" came to the fore. The focus of politics switched to regulating individual behaviour - including such areas as drinking, smoking and even eating - rather than battling over how to organise society.

This is a much more convincing explanation for the shifts that Reich identifies than his focus on technology. Although Reich denies being a technological determinist his explanation exaggerates the role of technology and understates the role of political defeat in creating the current climate.

Reich's outlook also leads to some deeply conservative conclusions despite his reluctance to spell them out in detail. He is in favour of "new rules of the game" (read regulation) particularly in relation to corporate lobbying. Reich seems to lack confidence in the capacity of others to counter the arguments of corporations.

More worryingly, he twice advocates "sacrifice" by ordinary people by which he seems to mean an acceptance of lower living standards. He appears to take the peculiar view that reducing living standards will somehow bolster democracy.

In reality democracy can only be achieved by a revival of politics in the proper sense of the term. This means relaunching a battle of ideas over competing visions of how to organise society. It involves a struggle that is entirely consistent with raising rather than lowering the living standards of the bulk of the population. It is Reich's demand for sacrifice that is the antithesis of democracy.

Labels: book, economics, Fund Strategy, globalisation, review, technology

In contrast to the gloom in the previous entry, Dick Taverne, a Liberal Democrat Peer and chair of Sense about Science, has written a defence of Genetically Modified (GM) agriculture for the November issue of Prospect magazine:

“Seldom has public perception been more out of line with the facts. The public in Britain and Europe seems unaware of the astonishing success of GM crops in the rest of the world. No new agricultural technology in recent times has spread faster and more widely. Only a decade after their commercial introduction, GM crops are now cultivated in 22 countries on over 100m hectares (an area more than four times the size of Britain) by over 10m farmers, of whom 9m are resource-poor farmers in developing countries, mainly India and China. Most of these small-scale farmers grow pest-resistant GM cotton. In India alone, production tripled last year to over 3.6m hectares. This cotton benefits farmers because it reduces the need for insecticides, thereby increasing their income and also improving their health. It is true that the promised development of staple GM food crops for the developing world has been delayed, but this is not because of technical flaws. It is principally because GM crops, unlike conventional crops, must overcome costly, time-consuming and unnecessary regulatory obstacles before they can be licensed.”

Labels: health, technology

A key chapter (PDF) in the latest World Economic Outlook from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) looks at globalisation and inequality. The chapter concedes that inequality has generally widened over the past 20 years although it also makes the point that living standards have generally risen. In other words the poor are better off in absolute terms but the gap between rich and poor has widened at the same time.

The chapter also uses an econometric model to try to identify the sources of inequality. Contrary to common belief it concludes that increased trade does not lead to wider inequalities. Instead inequality is associated with financial openness – particularly foreign direct investment – and most of all to technology. The reasoning behind the latter is that skilled workers are better able to make use of technology.

I am sceptical about the use of such models. They may help identify correlations – for example, one variable is associated with another – but that is not the same as explaining relationships. To be fair to the IMF it is also cautious about the conclusions that can be drawn from the model.

Labels: finance, globalisation, inequality, technology, trade

I have written a short contribution to the spiked debate on the idea of a mobile “footprint”:

The idea of a mobile footprint is meaningless in practical terms. Just think about how much carbon dioxide it takes to produce a particular mobile phone. If the energy used is generated from nuclear or hydroelectric power it could be zero. If the energy is generated from fossil fuels it will be higher, but the precise amount will depend on the sophistication of the technology used.

A similar argument can be made in relation to the raw materials used in the phone and its manufacture. The processes used to make the same phone can be relatively efficient or inefficient. There is no fixed amount of material used.

Since the quantity can vary so widely the idea of a footprint has no validity as a practical measure. The use of a labelling scheme can only add a spurious air of objectivity to a dubious concept.

The real importance of the idea of an ecological footprint is moral. It is used by environmentalists as a metaphor to suggest that human beings should limit their impact on the environment. It is part of what could be called a morality of self-limitation.

Such a morality is particularly inappropriate to uphold in relation to mobile technology. Surely the appeal of such technology is that it enables people to extend their horizons. It makes it possible to communicate with people we know in new ways as well as broadening our range of contacts. As a result it helps us extend our control over nature still further.

Labels: footprint, spiked, technology

spiked has published a letter by me on the desirability of encouraging Indian villagers to use foot pumps to provide themselves with water. It is in response to an exchange between Brendan O’Neill, who argued that carbon offsets were being used to encourage such primitive technology, and Michael Buick of Climate Care who advocated such technology.

Whether you side with Brendan O’Neill or Michael Buick on the use of foot-powered water pumps in Indian villages depends on what you consider appropriate. Those who believe that Indians should enjoy Western living standards and the best modern technology should side with Brendan. Those who favour a life mired in rural poverty should support Michael.

Michael’s claim that Indian farmers choose pedal pumps of their own free will is ridiculous. It is like asking a person who is starving to death whether they are prepared to eat bread infested with maggots. They would probably eat the bread but only because better options are not available to them.

The real question is whether it is right for Indians to aspire to develop a modern industrialised and urbanised economy. As long as 70% of the population remains in the countryside, typically eking out a meagre living from tiny plots of land, the vast majority of Indians will remain poor. The solution to the lack of development is to change the character of the Indian economy rather than selling foot pumps.

Of course if Michael wants to use a foot pump to provide water for his own home that should be his free choice.

Labels: development, india, spiked, technology, water

James Heartfield has written a characteristically astute review article on technophilia and technophobia for the latest spiked review of books. Rather than attempt to summarise the whole thing I will point to a few snippets:

* “Post-Fordist Britain makes more cars than ever before, and the weight of car production remains firmly in the developed world.” I have long suspected this was the case but had not tracked down the reference to prove it. Heartfield cites The Shock of the Old by David Edgerton.

* American Cold War intellectuals played a key role in developing technophile. For example, Walt Rostow, the author of The Stages of Economic Growth, reworked Marxist theory to make industry the blind agent of history. This is discussed further in Imaginary Futures by Richard Barbrook.

* The New Left led the attack against the technocratic society. Arguably they were the forerunners of today’s environmentalists and therapy addicts. Key thinkers in this tradition included John Kenneth Galbraith, Herbert Marcuse and Reinhold Niebuhr. Theodor Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment was a widely taught anti-technology manifesto of the time. All this is evidently examined by Barbrook.

* Heartfield also gives examples of how the victory of technophobia is damaging industrial growth right now.

Labels: book, review, technology

If an article in today’s Wall Street Journal is to be believed the Chinese are finding it easier than expected to shift to more sophisticated production. To quote the start of a piece by Andrew Batson in Beijing:

“China is demonstrating a surprising ability to parlay its dominance in low-end manufacturing into a new strength in producing sophisticated high-tech goods.

“Already the place where many of the world's computers and mobile phones are put together, it is expected to become home to a multibillion-dollar integrated-circuit plant run by Intel Corp, the world's biggest maker of computer chips.

“The speed at which China is moving into more-complex manufacturing is a sign that its transition from a low-wage economy making cheap goods to a high-wage economy producing valuable ones may not be as difficult as once thought.”

Labels: china, development, economics, technology

Good news in the fight against malaria. Scientists have shown, at least in principle, that genetically modified (GM) mosquitoes could help quell the disease. Scientists in the lab have created a malaria-resistant mosquito that can better survive than those carrying the disease. According to a BBC online article:

“GM mosquitoes that interfered with development of the malaria parasite would make it more difficult for the organism to become re-established after it had been eradicated from a target area, they said.”

Labels: development, health, technology

This week’s Economist has an interesting piece on geo-engineering in its technology quarterly (subscription required). Rather than curb emissions such techniques rely on large-scale planetary engineering to counteract climate change. Although the Economist says it was discussed in a report to the American president as far back as 1965 it is generally disliked by environmentalists. However, schemes being currently discussed by top scientists include building a giant sunshade in space, spreading tiny particles in the atmosphere to deflect the sun’s rays and blasting tiny droplets of salt water into the air.

Such ideas have previously already been discussed recently in a New York Times article and a piece on spiked. George Monbiot has also attacked geo-engineering in his Guardian column (and see my 30 August 2006 dispatch).

Labels: climate, environment, geo-engineering, spiked, technology

Decisive evidence that the arch-capitalists of Wall Street have gone green. Private investors who are paying almost $45bn to take over TXU, a Texas utility, have accepted stringent environmental conditions. Instead of building the 11 coal-fired power stations that TXU had originally planned it will only build three. Articles in the Christian Science Monitor and the Economist put this into the context of Wall Street increasingly accepting the environmentalists’ case on global warming. The fact that humanity needs substantially more energy production rather than less does not seem to have entered the discussion.

Labels: climate, economics, energy, environment, technology

Ben Goldacre, who writes the Guardian’s Bad Science column, has written an article criticising scare headlines linking cancer to genetically modified (GM) potatoes. He gives as an example a high profile story in 1998 making such a link and a similar more recent one in the Independent. On closer examination neither story was justified by the evidence yet they help to create the misleading impression that GM foods are unsafe. Goldacre argues that any research on GM should be published in full, so that it can be properly scrutinised, rather than being reported on the basis of leaks.

Meanwhile, the Times has run a preview of a forthcoming Channel 4 series on GM. In Animal Farm Dr Olivia Judson, a biological scientist, will put the case for GM while Giles Coren, a food writer will take a more critical view. In the course of working on the programme Coren evidently realised that GM food has many advantages. However, like Ben Goldacre of the Guardian, he expresses fears of the control of GM technology by multinational corporations.

Labels: food, science, technology

The cover story of the current New Scientist (24 February 2007) is on ways to make flying cleaner. It includes discussion of such technology as strut-braced wings, laminar flow control, fast forward and the flying wing. The piece, by Bennett Daviss, takes a sceptical view on whether such technologies will ever be implemented. But at least it shows the possibilities of such technologies if humans decide to work on them.

Labels: climate, technology, transport

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Separate article in box]

Change or Catastophe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labels: energy, science, technology, transport

Monitoring the alleged sins of modern life

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

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

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

Labels: sin tracker, technology

Monitoring the alleged sins of modern life

Evidently showering is good - it uses less energy than baths - but singing or thinking in the shower are bad. Time spent not actually cleaning yourself means using more energy which in turn means more global warming. According to a helpful press release (PDF) from Energy Australia, which has been monitoring such things:

"Brushing teeth, playing with toys and just day dreaming are some of the reasons why young children are showering longer, while for parents relaxing, exfoliating or shaving were the reasons given for keeping the hot water running."

So showering is OK as long as you don't enjoy yourself or do anything else at the same time.

Labels: sin tracker, technology, water

Monitoring the alleged sins of modern life

The naïve might assume that MP3 players, including iPods, would be welcomed by environmentalists. Virtual music does not involve manufacturing CDs or shipping them all over the world. But it should be clear by now that environmentalists are never satisfied. For example, an article by Leo Hickman, the chief ethical guru of the Guardian, points out that online music can be “burned” onto CDs at home. In addition, MP3 players are frequently replaced so that uses unnecessary resources. And of course such devices include toxic substances such as cadmium, beryllium and lead. If only the miserabalists would start playing a different tune.

Labels: sin tracker, technology

An astute point on the downside of relying on local food sources from the unexpected source of the International Monetary Fund’s World Economic Outlook. Its chapter on commodity prices (PDF) makes as an aside the point that:

“the volatility of food and raw agricultural material prices seems to have fallen on average over the past couple of decades, as growing geographical diversification of production and technological advances have reduced the sensitivity of food prices to supply shocks, such as bad weather or natural disasters.”

In other words global food production and high technology can help prevent food shortages and even starvation. If there are problems in one part of the world then food can be transported in from other regions of the globe. The original source is a 2004 report on the state of agricultural commodity markets by the Food and Agriculture Organisation.

The same chapter makes the point that the supply of base metals is practically unlimited. Aluminum, for example, accounts for 8% of the earth’s crust and iron 5%. The original source is a 2003 study by John Tilton.

Labels: food, technology, trade

A reminder from Sight Savers , a British-based charity, that most blindness can be cured or prevented. This month the charity is running an exhibition at the BA London Eye on “my favourite sight” by celebrities and Bangladeshi children. Most of the pictures are not to my taste but some of the background information on the organisation's website is useful. For example:

“Globally, there are 37 million people who are blind. 90 percent of blindness occurs in the developing world. Three quarters of all blindness is preventable or curable.”

Labels: progress, technology

Monitoring the alleged sins of modern life

Tap water is sinful according to CityAM, a free daily newspaper for those who work in the City of London, especially if it is hot. An article in today’s issue warns:

“It appears that some carcinogenic industrial solvents such as benzene and methylene chloride can be present in tap water and can pass through the skin. The worst part is that, as water warms up, these carcinogens become gasses and are then easily inhaled.”

Nothing about the concentration of such carcinogens or how frequently they can be present in tap water. Just a warning to keep showers short or preferably buy a special shower filter from www.healthproductsforlife.com.

Labels: sin tracker, technology, water

Monitoring the alleged sins of modern life

This is the first of my Sin Tracker columns in which I discuss specific targets for attacks on modern living by environmentalists. There are plenty of candidates for future columns including eating cheap food, using too much water, buying cheap goods, driving cars and going on holiday abroad. Additional suggestions are welcome. But this dispatch will focus on the hot topic of air conditioning.

Prospect magazine’s September issue includes an entire essay by James Fergusson , a British writer, on why air conditioning “while liberating us, increasingly threatens us too”. For Fergusson air conditioning belongs alongside the aeroplane and car as destroyers of the environment:

“There is a piece of 20th-century technology—seldom discussed or even noticed because it is practically invisible when working as it should—which has played a role in shaping the modern world almost as big as the motor car or the aeroplane. Its contribution to carbon emissions and climate change has been just as disastrous, in its way, and is set to make an even bigger impact in the near future. Step forward, please, the humble air-conditioning unit.”

Despite its heavy use of electricity (a terrible sin apparently) he is balanced enough to acknowledge the role of air conditioning in economic development:

“Since the 1950s air-conditioning has been partly responsible for the economic development of America's sunbelt, internal migration towards which continues to this day. Never mind the cowboys out west: aircon was how the south was won. The same is true of many other parts of the world. The financial centres of Japan, the capitals of the Asian tiger economies, the hubs of the Gulf like Dubai—all would be almost unthinkable without temperature control. So too would the software that links and underpins them, since computer technology does not function well in hot and humid conditions. Without air-conditioning, the information superhighway would buckle in the heat.”

Environmentalist attacks on air conditioning were anticipated by Mick Hume, the editor of Spiked, in an article in the Times (London) on 28 July. According to Hume:

“Verily, they want us to suffer for our sins. The old puritans cautioned only that we would burn in Hell in the next life. The neo-puritans tell us we must burn on Earth in this one.”

Labels: climate, environment, sin tracker, spiked, technology

The idea of a global water shortage seems particularly odd. There is so much of it in the world and it is the ultimate recyclable commodity - once it is used it can often easily be reused. Yet much of the reporting of the World Water Week in Stockholm suggests there is a global water shortage.

The idea of a water shortage is certainly being pushed by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). A press release from the organisation quotes Jamie Pittock, director of WWF’s Global Freshwater Programme, arguing that: “Economic riches don’t translate to plentiful water.” But surely they do. It is hard to imagine the inhabitants of Arizona or Texas having to do without water.

There also other hints at how resources could help develop water supplies. A press release from the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (PDF) quotes Frank Rijsberman, director general of the International Water Management Institute, saying: “one billion people live in river basins where water is economically scarce - water is available in rivers and aquifers, but the infrastructure is lacking to make this water available to people.” In such cases surely the solution is to build the necessary infrastructure? Rijsberman does make substantial concessions to environmentalist thinking but these cannot be examined here. Something to examine for the future.

Labels: economics, environment, technology, water

A useful reminder in today’s Wall Street Journal Europe (subscription required) about the scourge of malaria and how it can be solved by economic development. Evidently malaria afflicts half a billion people a year and kills a million of them. One way to deal with the disease it to spray DDT, a pesticide, but such action is vetoed by environmentalists. The article also quotes Roger Bate, of Africa Fighting Marlaria, explaining the link between fighting malaria and economic development:

"We eradicated malaria in Malaysia in the '50s and '60s, and in Singapore at the same time. It came back in Malaysia in the '70s but not in Singapore, and the reason it came back is that there wasn't enough wealth for people to have screens on the windows. Singapore's economy, however, grew rapidly, and there isn't a problem there anymore."

Labels: Asia, development, health, progress, technology

Do jihadis attack planes precisely because they are symbols of modernity? That is the argument of Michael Clarke, professor of defence studies at King’s College, London, in an article in Saturday’s Times (London):

“Commercial aircraft represent globalism and high technology — they shrink the world and threaten cultural conservatism. The Boeing 747 was the last of the “great machines” that characterised the 20th century: it opened up air travel to the mass market.”

His argument puts the common environmentalist dislike of air travel into perspective (see August 5 dispatch). Few environmentalists would blow up aircraft but they share a similar aversion to air travel as a symbol of modernity.

Then again other symbols of modernity, such as skyscrapers and cars, are also under attack in different ways.

Labels: environment, modernity, technology, transport

Austin Williams, the director of the Future Cities Project , has recommended Made to Break by Giles Slade to me. The book is a study of twentieth century technology seen through the prism of obsolescence. Evidently Austin has reviewed it for the Times Literary Supplement.

Labels: book, technology

Once you start looking you find numerous examples of anti-materialism. Today I came across two before even arriving at work.

BBC TV’s Breakfast programme included an item on the proposal by David Miliband, Britain’s environment minister, to introduce swipe cards to ration carbon usage. Supporting the proposal, on the green side of the couch, was Mayer Hillman. Indeed he claimed he proposed the idea many years ago. Opposing Hillman was James Woudhuysen, professor of innovation at De Montfort University, who proposed “supply side innovation” as an alternative (more efficient power stations, nuclear energy, tidal power and so on).

On my train journey the front page headline in the Metro was “Rise in crime is blamed on iPods”. John Reid, the home secretary, was quoted as saying the rise in violent crime “is largely driven by a rise in the numbers of young people carrying expensive goods". Now it is true that iPods could not have been stolen before they were invented but it is hard to take this argument seriously. For example, one study estimates that the murder rate in medieval England was twice that in contemporary America. Or alternatively perhaps the current conflict in the Middle East can be reinterpreted as a battle over iPod ownership?

Labels: climate, environment, technology, television

I was stunned today by the Modernism exhibition at London’s Victoria & Albert Museum. I am not qualified to discuss its artistic merits but what struck me most was the difference in perspective between the modernists, particularly in the early years of the movement from 1917 through the 1920s, and today (for a review of the exhibition see Karl Sharro on Culture Wars ). They welcomed science and technology as a way of enhancing the potential of humanity. In contrast today, tragically, the development of human control over nature is generally seen as a threat.

Labels: modernity, science, technology