Thursday, February 11, 2010
Green police
This television commercial is meant to promote an Audi car but somehow ends up being a brilliant satire on the authoritarian consequences of environmentalism.
Labels: environment, ethics, television
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
For sprawling cities
James Heartfield has an article on the newgeography website celebrating what he calls dispersed settlements and others deride as urban sprawl. He concludes that:
“Far from being necessarily de-humanising, dispersed settlements are an opportunity for an enlargement of the human spirit. To imagine that there is anything in physical proximity that is essential to community is to confuse animal warmth with civilisation, and an unfortunately deterministic view of architecture’s relationship to society. But worst of all it misses out the great alternatives that are waiting to be made in new communities across the country.”
This is a welcome contrast to the romanticised vision of slums contained in a recent article (truncated) on “how slums can save the planet” by Stewart Brand in Prospect. Brand’s argument was in turn similar to Kevin McCloud’s recent documentary on Mumbai which I suggested might be the dumbest programme ever (see 15 January 2010 post).
“Far from being necessarily de-humanising, dispersed settlements are an opportunity for an enlargement of the human spirit. To imagine that there is anything in physical proximity that is essential to community is to confuse animal warmth with civilisation, and an unfortunately deterministic view of architecture’s relationship to society. But worst of all it misses out the great alternatives that are waiting to be made in new communities across the country.”
This is a welcome contrast to the romanticised vision of slums contained in a recent article (truncated) on “how slums can save the planet” by Stewart Brand in Prospect. Brand’s argument was in turn similar to Kevin McCloud’s recent documentary on Mumbai which I suggested might be the dumbest programme ever (see 15 January 2010 post).
Labels: cities, development, footprint, television
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Showing farmers conquer nature
Jimmy’s Global Harvest is by far the most inspiring documentary series I have seen on British television recently. Jimmy Doherty, a farmer with a PhD in entomology, is concerned with the practical business of how farmers can boost productivity in adverse conditions (see 20 July 2008 and 30 November 2008 posts for his earlier television work). In essence it is about human ingenuity: showing how farmers can feed the world by overcoming problems such as extreme temperatures, poor soil and inadequate water supplies. So far programmes have focused on Australia and Brazil with American and another country (not yet revealed) on the way.
It its subtle way it is sticking two fingers up to the Malthusians.
It its subtle way it is sticking two fingers up to the Malthusians.
Labels: climate, food, Malthus, science, technology, television
Friday, January 08, 2010
The vilest story ever?
In the three and a half years I have written this blog I have come across many vile stories on growth sceptic themes. But this one from the BBC, one of the world’s most prestigious news organisations, is a contender for title of the worst ever.
According to a BBC news report rising prosperity is leading Ugandans to engage in child sacrifice. The story is based on an item on Newsnight, a premium programme broadcast by the network.
The report says:
“The Ugandan government told us that human sacrifice is on the increase, and according to the head of the country's Anti-Human Sacrifice Taskforce the crime is directly linked to rising levels of development and prosperity, and an increasing belief that witchcraft can help people get rich quickly.”
Not only is this view left unchallenged it is explicitly endorsed in the BBC’s coverage.
It does not explain how, if affluence leads to child sacrifice, why such practices are not prevalent in Britain as it is far richer than Uganda. Or if rapid growth is key then presumably it should be more pervasive in China which has a much higher growth rate.
It looks like the BBC would prefer it if Africans accepted dire poverty as their lot.
If anyone knows of any other contenders for vilest story ever please let me know.
According to a BBC news report rising prosperity is leading Ugandans to engage in child sacrifice. The story is based on an item on Newsnight, a premium programme broadcast by the network.
The report says:
“The Ugandan government told us that human sacrifice is on the increase, and according to the head of the country's Anti-Human Sacrifice Taskforce the crime is directly linked to rising levels of development and prosperity, and an increasing belief that witchcraft can help people get rich quickly.”
Not only is this view left unchallenged it is explicitly endorsed in the BBC’s coverage.
It does not explain how, if affluence leads to child sacrifice, why such practices are not prevalent in Britain as it is far richer than Uganda. Or if rapid growth is key then presumably it should be more pervasive in China which has a much higher growth rate.
It looks like the BBC would prefer it if Africans accepted dire poverty as their lot.
If anyone knows of any other contenders for vilest story ever please let me know.
Labels: Africa, development, television
Saturday, January 02, 2010
Understanding the apocalpyse
Don’t worry if you’ve missed the apocalypse because another one will be along in a minute. After The Day of the Triffids aired on BBC over Christmas three post-apocalyptic thrillers – The Book of Eli, Daybreakers and The Road – will be out in the cinema in January.
Several commentators have remarked on the popularity of this genre but they tend not to understand its significance. Some relate it to climate change while others see it as part of a timeless eschatology.
In my view it should be linked to the profound sense of pessimism that has enveloped contemporary society.
Several commentators have remarked on the popularity of this genre but they tend not to understand its significance. Some relate it to climate change while others see it as part of a timeless eschatology.
In my view it should be linked to the profound sense of pessimism that has enveloped contemporary society.
Labels: apocalyptic, film, progress, television
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Back in action
After a three week break I am getting back into blogging. Once I receive comments from my publisher I also will have to rewrite my book manuscript by the end of the month.
So far the links I have found are as follows. If you think I have missed anything particularly important while I have been away please email me.
* I was particularly said to miss this year’s Battle of Ideas festival in London. However, several sessions, including one on post-recession ideologies, are already available on audio. Others will hopefully soon follow on video. Rob Killick has also written up his speech on economic growth and its discontents.
* Worldwrite’s regular Worldbytes television magazine programme includes an item on austerity and the alleged lesions of the Second World War.
* Al Gore is in the news a lot with a new book coming out entitled Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis. He is also the subject of the cover story in this week’s Newsweek while a New York Times article examines the possible conflict of interest between Gore as an investor and as an advocate for action on climate change.
* Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, made much of the battle against climate change in her address to the American congress.
* Meanwhile, the implication of this BBC article and the related radio programme is that nostalgia for East German values is a form that growth scepticism is taking in Germany. I am not sure this is correct but it is certainly worth investigating.
So far the links I have found are as follows. If you think I have missed anything particularly important while I have been away please email me.
* I was particularly said to miss this year’s Battle of Ideas festival in London. However, several sessions, including one on post-recession ideologies, are already available on audio. Others will hopefully soon follow on video. Rob Killick has also written up his speech on economic growth and its discontents.
* Worldwrite’s regular Worldbytes television magazine programme includes an item on austerity and the alleged lesions of the Second World War.
* Al Gore is in the news a lot with a new book coming out entitled Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis. He is also the subject of the cover story in this week’s Newsweek while a New York Times article examines the possible conflict of interest between Gore as an investor and as an advocate for action on climate change.
* Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, made much of the battle against climate change in her address to the American congress.
* Meanwhile, the implication of this BBC article and the related radio programme is that nostalgia for East German values is a form that growth scepticism is taking in Germany. I am not sure this is correct but it is certainly worth investigating.
Labels: America, book, climate, environment, Germany, radio, television, Worldwrite
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Good and bad on television
Even in these times, when frugality is in fashion, there are some unexpected positive items among the many negative ones on television.
In the first episode of It’s Only A Theory, a new BBC Four panel show, Lucy Beresford defended her proposition that there is nothing inherently wrong with sadness. The two comedians and guest celebrity found it a convincing argument.
In sharp contrast BBC Newsnight, ostensibly a serious news programme, is promoting a make do and mend tour of Britain. It consists of Sarah Jane Baxter, a milliner, travelling from London to Scotland over the month and funding her trip by fixing things. This follows the recent miserable ethical man series in which a Newsnight report spent a year living “ethically”.
(Note: These programmes are probably not available for viewing outside Britain).
In the first episode of It’s Only A Theory, a new BBC Four panel show, Lucy Beresford defended her proposition that there is nothing inherently wrong with sadness. The two comedians and guest celebrity found it a convincing argument.
In sharp contrast BBC Newsnight, ostensibly a serious news programme, is promoting a make do and mend tour of Britain. It consists of Sarah Jane Baxter, a milliner, travelling from London to Scotland over the month and funding her trip by fixing things. This follows the recent miserable ethical man series in which a Newsnight report spent a year living “ethically”.
(Note: These programmes are probably not available for viewing outside Britain).
Labels: consumption, ethics, happiness, television
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Malthus 2009
George Alagiah’s three-part BBC2 series on the Future of Food – still available to watch on BBC iPlayer - was classic Malthusianism. From start it assumed that a combination of rising population and increased prosperity is sending the Earth towards environmental catastrophe. For him a combination of water shortages, impending energy shortages and climate change was creating, to use his hackneyed phrase, “a perfect storm”.
Points worth noting about the film included:
- The extensive quoting of environmental activists and sympathisers as if they were objective experts on the topic. I have no objection to such people being quoted but it should be made clear that they only express one side of the argument.
- The crass equivalence made between problems of food shortage and hunger in the developing world with the problem of obesity in the west.
- The little Englander thrust of the programme with great self sufficiency in food seen as a virtually uncontested good (with the honourable exception of one New Zealand agricultural expert).
Most of all though the idea of limits was asserted at the start of the first programme and not contested in the remainder of the series.
Challenging the poisonous anti-human outlook of Malthusianism is becoming an ever more urgent task.
Points worth noting about the film included:
- The extensive quoting of environmental activists and sympathisers as if they were objective experts on the topic. I have no objection to such people being quoted but it should be made clear that they only express one side of the argument.
- The crass equivalence made between problems of food shortage and hunger in the developing world with the problem of obesity in the west.
- The little Englander thrust of the programme with great self sufficiency in food seen as a virtually uncontested good (with the honourable exception of one New Zealand agricultural expert).
Most of all though the idea of limits was asserted at the start of the first programme and not contested in the remainder of the series.
Challenging the poisonous anti-human outlook of Malthusianism is becoming an ever more urgent task.
Labels: food, Malthus, television
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The Pelican Brief and Julia Roberts
Until I caught up with the Pelican Brief, the 1993 legal thriller based on a John Grisham novel, on television I had not reallsed how much it reflects the environmentalist spirit of our times. The plot involves a law student (played by Julia Roberts) who stumbles across a conspiracy by a big oil company which involves gross environmental destruction (including the habitat of pelicans). To protect his commercial interests the evil oil magnate is willing to corrupt politicians up to and including America’s president.
For Roberts the lead role came several years before she played an environmental campaigner in Erin Brockovic (2000). She has since become a high profile green campaigner in her own right alongside the likes of George Clooney, Al Gore and Robert F Kennedy (see post of 17 May 2008).
For Roberts the lead role came several years before she played an environmental campaigner in Erin Brockovic (2000). She has since become a high profile green campaigner in her own right alongside the likes of George Clooney, Al Gore and Robert F Kennedy (see post of 17 May 2008).
Labels: celebrities, environment, film, television
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Miserabilism and antidote
While watching Robert Glennon being interviewed on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show I was struck by his miserabilism. Apparently Unquenchable, the new book by the Arizona law professor, bemoans the fact that the current generation of Americans have access to water without having to think about it. What should be seen as a mark of progress is viewed as a potential environmental disaster.
Fortunately I have belatedly discovered an antidote in James May’s 20th century. The television series shows the amazing extent of technological discovery by human beings in the last century. It also gives enormous hope for the future.
Fortunately I have belatedly discovered an antidote in James May’s 20th century. The television series shows the amazing extent of technological discovery by human beings in the last century. It also gives enormous hope for the future.
Labels: consumption, environment, science, technology, television, water
Friday, July 17, 2009
RSA consumerism debate
For the time being I will limit my comments on this evenings debate at the RSA on consumerism (see 7 July post). Once the audio feed of the event is available on the RSA website I will post a link to this site. I will also post my review of Neal Lawson’s book when it is published on Monday.
However, a few points to note:
* The books on consumerism by Professor Matthew Hilton, one of this evening’s speakers, sound worth reading. They include his Consumerism in Twentieth Century Britain (Cambridge UP 2003) and Prosperity for All (Cornell UP 2008).
• Given the contemporary obsession with advertising I should get round to watching Mad Men, Matthew Weiner's television drama about the world of advertising in 1960s New York.
• Neal Lawson has generously proposed a return event at the RSA when my book is published next year. I would certainly be up for it.
However, a few points to note:
* The books on consumerism by Professor Matthew Hilton, one of this evening’s speakers, sound worth reading. They include his Consumerism in Twentieth Century Britain (Cambridge UP 2003) and Prosperity for All (Cornell UP 2008).
• Given the contemporary obsession with advertising I should get round to watching Mad Men, Matthew Weiner's television drama about the world of advertising in 1960s New York.
• Neal Lawson has generously proposed a return event at the RSA when my book is published next year. I would certainly be up for it.
Labels: book, consumption, ethics, film, speeches, television
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Cheap food and low productivity
The six British consumers taking part in BBC 3’s “Blood, Sweat and Takeaways” documentary were, with a couple of exceptions, less narcissistic than their counterparts in last year’s “Blood, Sweat and T-Shirts” (see posts of 18 April, 14 May and 17 June 2008). This year’s programme featured young foodies doing menial work as producers of food in south east Asia. So far they have worked on tuna in Indonesia, prawns in Indonesia and rice in Thailand.
But like its predecessor, which focused on the Indian garment industry, it suffered from a narrow consumerist perspective. The programme bills itself as discussing “the human price of producing our food”. What this seems to suggest it that cheap food prices in the West inevitably mean low wages in poor countries. But this is a false assumption.
The key economic problem in poorer countries is low levels of productivity. Although they are no doubt generally more productive than in the past they still have a long way to go. For example, Indonesian prawn farmers were shown constantly rebuilding mud walls around prawn ponds by hand. If they could afford the machinery to perform this task they would no doubt be much more productive.
Cheap food is a huge achievement for humanity that is well worth celebrating. But the poorer countries need to raise their productivity so they can enjoy higher living standards.
But like its predecessor, which focused on the Indian garment industry, it suffered from a narrow consumerist perspective. The programme bills itself as discussing “the human price of producing our food”. What this seems to suggest it that cheap food prices in the West inevitably mean low wages in poor countries. But this is a false assumption.
The key economic problem in poorer countries is low levels of productivity. Although they are no doubt generally more productive than in the past they still have a long way to go. For example, Indonesian prawn farmers were shown constantly rebuilding mud walls around prawn ponds by hand. If they could afford the machinery to perform this task they would no doubt be much more productive.
Cheap food is a huge achievement for humanity that is well worth celebrating. But the poorer countries need to raise their productivity so they can enjoy higher living standards.
Labels: Asia, consumption, development, ethics, food, television
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Greedy bankers not to blame for crisis
The following comment by me appeared in the latest Fund Strategy (4 May).
As time goes by, more sophisticated explanations for the economic crisis emerge. Working out which is correct is crucial to finding solutions. Clearly there are many elements involved in any comprehensive explanation of the downturn. But it is necessary to distinguish between those that are central to explaining the crisis and those that are contingent.
Will Hutton gave the most straightforward explanation for the crisis in his recent Channel 4 Dispatches documentary. For Hutton, as for many others, it was the fault of greedy bankers.
This argument at least has the virtue of simplicity. Dispatches featured many financial types confessing their responsibility, or at least that of their institutions, for the crisis. Not so much out of the horse’s mouth but, at least in Hutton’s view, the devil’s mouth.
But just because many people perceive something to be the case it does not make it true. From a common sense perspective it appears that the Earth is the centre of the universe and the sun revolves around it. Yet as far back as the 16th century scientists realised the sun is the centre of the solar system.
Just as with natural science, it is necessary for social science to go beyond superficial appearances. For example, it may appear to observers and even participants that aggressive risk-taking characterised the financial markets.
But the reality is much more paradoxical than such impressions suggest. Complex financial instruments developed in response to a demand to manage risk rather than to take big risks. Mortgage-backed securities, for instance, had the advantage of taking risk off the balance sheet of mortgage lenders. Yet the desire to manage risk simply meant that it reappeared in a new form.
The overproduction explanation for the crisis favoured by Michael Howell, the managing director of CrossBorderCapital, has more merit. He argues that there is a mismatch between the sharp rise in production – particularly from Asian producers – and the much slower increase in consumption. Therefore Howell characterises the downturn as one of overproduction while others have referred to its obverse, underconsumption.
The problem with this is that underconsumption itself has to be explained. It is not sufficient to describe it as a natural phenomenon, with production growing inherently faster than consumption. If people had the resources to consume more they no doubt would. The problem is identifying what it is about the market mechanism that creates this imbalance.
It appears there is a long-term trend towards falling profitability, particularly in the developed nations. This should not be taken to mean that the West is facing imminent collapse. But it does mean there is a constant drive for the market to try to find ways of overcoming its tendency towards breakdown.
As time goes by, more sophisticated explanations for the economic crisis emerge. Working out which is correct is crucial to finding solutions. Clearly there are many elements involved in any comprehensive explanation of the downturn. But it is necessary to distinguish between those that are central to explaining the crisis and those that are contingent.
Will Hutton gave the most straightforward explanation for the crisis in his recent Channel 4 Dispatches documentary. For Hutton, as for many others, it was the fault of greedy bankers.
This argument at least has the virtue of simplicity. Dispatches featured many financial types confessing their responsibility, or at least that of their institutions, for the crisis. Not so much out of the horse’s mouth but, at least in Hutton’s view, the devil’s mouth.
But just because many people perceive something to be the case it does not make it true. From a common sense perspective it appears that the Earth is the centre of the universe and the sun revolves around it. Yet as far back as the 16th century scientists realised the sun is the centre of the solar system.
Just as with natural science, it is necessary for social science to go beyond superficial appearances. For example, it may appear to observers and even participants that aggressive risk-taking characterised the financial markets.
But the reality is much more paradoxical than such impressions suggest. Complex financial instruments developed in response to a demand to manage risk rather than to take big risks. Mortgage-backed securities, for instance, had the advantage of taking risk off the balance sheet of mortgage lenders. Yet the desire to manage risk simply meant that it reappeared in a new form.
The overproduction explanation for the crisis favoured by Michael Howell, the managing director of CrossBorderCapital, has more merit. He argues that there is a mismatch between the sharp rise in production – particularly from Asian producers – and the much slower increase in consumption. Therefore Howell characterises the downturn as one of overproduction while others have referred to its obverse, underconsumption.
The problem with this is that underconsumption itself has to be explained. It is not sufficient to describe it as a natural phenomenon, with production growing inherently faster than consumption. If people had the resources to consume more they no doubt would. The problem is identifying what it is about the market mechanism that creates this imbalance.
It appears there is a long-term trend towards falling profitability, particularly in the developed nations. This should not be taken to mean that the West is facing imminent collapse. But it does mean there is a constant drive for the market to try to find ways of overcoming its tendency towards breakdown.
Labels: economics, film, Fund Strategy, television
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Growth is busted
I see that yet another documentary, Hooked on growth, is being made claiming that we should break our supposed addiction to growth. Surely it is time for Dave Gardner - the producer, director and writer of the film who describes himself as the “voice of reason in Colorado Springs” - and others like him to change their tune? Now that the world economy looks set to shrink for the first time since 1945 how about a documentary in praise of rising unemployment, falling living standards and cuts in consumption? Presumably the pain the world economy is suffering is welcome from their jaundiced perspective?
Labels: consumption, economics, growth, television
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Guns, Germs and Steel
Until I saw the documentary version of Guns, Germs and Steel yesterday I had not realised how much Jared Diamond, one of the world’s most prominent environmentalist writers, pitched his argument in terms of global inequality. Diamond first set out in 1972 to explain why people in developed societies had so much “cargo” (stuff) compared with hunger-gatherers in New Guinea. His answer started with the agricultural revolution of 11,000 years ago where those in the Middle East had an advantage thanks to their indigenous crops, barley and wheat, along with access to animals that could be domesticated. Such knowledge was then gradually passed on to Europe and Asia. Later on, in the sixteenth century, the Spanish conquistadores used their superior technology to subjugate Latin America.
Relatively little of Diamond’s documentary was spent on recent years. To the extent he talked about contemporary inequality it was presented as a legacy of the past. Essentially his views amount to a kind of geographical determinism. There was no attempt to explain the role of contemporary social factors create inequality today.
Although Diamond’s views may have some merit as an explanation of history they do not explain the present. It may well be true that indigenous crops and access to animals that could be domesticated gave those in the Middle East an advantage at the dawn of the Agricultural Revolution. But to properly explain contemporary inequality means starting with social relations today rather than the distant past.
Strangely the documentary had a relatively upbeat ending. It was implied that Africa could potentially achieve development along the lines of Malaysia or Singapore. As far as I can see there is no reference to this possibility in the book on which the documentary was based. It is also at odds with his 1987 essay on how the Agricultural Revolution was “The worst mistake in the history of the human race”. That implies the best form of equality would be if we were all still hunter-gatherers.
Relatively little of Diamond’s documentary was spent on recent years. To the extent he talked about contemporary inequality it was presented as a legacy of the past. Essentially his views amount to a kind of geographical determinism. There was no attempt to explain the role of contemporary social factors create inequality today.
Although Diamond’s views may have some merit as an explanation of history they do not explain the present. It may well be true that indigenous crops and access to animals that could be domesticated gave those in the Middle East an advantage at the dawn of the Agricultural Revolution. But to properly explain contemporary inequality means starting with social relations today rather than the distant past.
Strangely the documentary had a relatively upbeat ending. It was implied that Africa could potentially achieve development along the lines of Malaysia or Singapore. As far as I can see there is no reference to this possibility in the book on which the documentary was based. It is also at odds with his 1987 essay on how the Agricultural Revolution was “The worst mistake in the history of the human race”. That implies the best form of equality would be if we were all still hunter-gatherers.
Labels: book, consumption, development, environment, inequality, television
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
The dream of unlimited energy
Just saw an inspiring BBC Horizon programme by Professor Brian Cox, a nuclear physicist and former keyboard player for D:Ream (“things can only get better”), on the prospects for fusion power. At present the programme is not available on BBC iPlayer but according to the official description of the documentary:
“Granted extraordinary access to the biggest and most ambitious fusion experiments on the planet, Brian travels to the USA to see a high security fusion bomb testing facility in action and is given a tour of the world's most powerful laser. In South Korea, he clambers inside the reaction chamber of K-Star, the world's first super-cooled, super-conducting fusion reactor where the fate of future fusion research will be decided.”
“Granted extraordinary access to the biggest and most ambitious fusion experiments on the planet, Brian travels to the USA to see a high security fusion bomb testing facility in action and is given a tour of the world's most powerful laser. In South Korea, he clambers inside the reaction chamber of K-Star, the world's first super-cooled, super-conducting fusion reactor where the fate of future fusion research will be decided.”
Labels: energy, science, technology, television
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Happy chickens?
What is a happy chicken?
The question occurred to me while watching the awful television documentary by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, a British celebrity chef, on Chickens, Hugh & Tesco Too. I won’t discuss the programme in general except to say it featured the Old Etonian campaigning against supermarkets selling cheap chicken. What struck me most was the several references he made to happy chickens.
You could argue that it was just a figure of speech but I think there is more to it than that. The idea of happiness has been hugely dumbed down in recent years. For Aristotle, writing in the Nicomachean Ethics, it meant an “activity of soul in accordance with virtue”. It meant harnessing the power of reason to attain personal achievements. For the Enlightenment thinkers who drafted the American Declaration of Independence the pursuit of happiness was part of a broader drive towards human progress. Yet the contemporary advocates of happiness seem to see it simply as individual contentment or perhaps a neurological impulse.
Fearnley-Whittingstall seems to have lowered the standard of debate still further by suggesting that chickens can be happy. This was in line with a broader trend in the programme of discussing animals in almost human terms.
I notice that Jamie Oliver, a celebrity chef even more awful than Fearnley-Whittingstall, has his own documentary on Channel 4 on Thursday called Jamie Saves Our Bacon. His goal seems to be to do for pigs what his fellow celebrity did for chickens.
I am not sure what Oliver would make of the famous quote from John Stuart Mill, a nineteenth century philosopher, that: “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied”. Mill’s concern was not animal welfare or even human contentment but the nature of our humanity.
The question occurred to me while watching the awful television documentary by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, a British celebrity chef, on Chickens, Hugh & Tesco Too. I won’t discuss the programme in general except to say it featured the Old Etonian campaigning against supermarkets selling cheap chicken. What struck me most was the several references he made to happy chickens.
You could argue that it was just a figure of speech but I think there is more to it than that. The idea of happiness has been hugely dumbed down in recent years. For Aristotle, writing in the Nicomachean Ethics, it meant an “activity of soul in accordance with virtue”. It meant harnessing the power of reason to attain personal achievements. For the Enlightenment thinkers who drafted the American Declaration of Independence the pursuit of happiness was part of a broader drive towards human progress. Yet the contemporary advocates of happiness seem to see it simply as individual contentment or perhaps a neurological impulse.
Fearnley-Whittingstall seems to have lowered the standard of debate still further by suggesting that chickens can be happy. This was in line with a broader trend in the programme of discussing animals in almost human terms.
I notice that Jamie Oliver, a celebrity chef even more awful than Fearnley-Whittingstall, has his own documentary on Channel 4 on Thursday called Jamie Saves Our Bacon. His goal seems to be to do for pigs what his fellow celebrity did for chickens.
I am not sure what Oliver would make of the famous quote from John Stuart Mill, a nineteenth century philosopher, that: “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied”. Mill’s concern was not animal welfare or even human contentment but the nature of our humanity.
Labels: celebrities, food, happiness, television
Sunday, January 11, 2009
OJ loves the credit crunch
I finally managed to track down the origin of the quote by Oliver James, the clinical psychologist who propagates the idea of “Affluenza”, where he says that: “I absolutely embrace the credit crunch with both arms”. It was in a BBC Radio 4 Book Club programme with James Naughtie that was first broadcast on 7 January. The audience was largely sympathetic to James while Naughtie seemed oblivious to the fact that the Affluenza thesis is not original.
The criticisms I made of the book in my review still remain valid (see the list of links on the left). An additional point that struck me was his insistence that people should watch much less television if they want to protect themselves against Affluenza.
The criticisms I made of the book in my review still remain valid (see the list of links on the left). An additional point that struck me was his insistence that people should watch much less television if they want to protect themselves against Affluenza.
Labels: affluenza, happiness, radio, television
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
PS on the simple life
After yesterday’s post on simple living I was reminded by a television advert that there is a long history of popular culture lauding the simple life. Evidently the Little House on the Prairie, a 1974-1983 television series depicting a family in a village in the American Midwest in the late nineteenth century, is now available on DVD. It is based on books which were first published in America in the midst of the Great Depression of the 1930s. Other television programmes on a similar theme include the Waltons (1972-1981), on a family facing rural hardship in Virginia in the 1930s, and the Good Life (1975-78 – called Good Neighbours in America), a comedy on a couple who decide to opt out of the “rat race” in suburban Britain.
Labels: book, ethics, television
Sunday, November 30, 2008
TV primer on GM crops
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.
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
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Apocalypse porn
Two more examples of the popularity of the post-apocalyptic genre. This evening the BBC Survivors programme – a remake of a 1970s series – was first aired. It is the cheery tale of a world in which a global flu pandemic has killed 90% of the population. This week also saw the launch in Britain of Blindness, a movie about a world in which millions of people have gone blind.
For more on the “post-apocalyptic” genre see posts of 24 April 2008, 9 September 2008, 19 October 2008. I have also created an “apocalyptic” tag.
For more on the “post-apocalyptic” genre see posts of 24 April 2008, 9 September 2008, 19 October 2008. I have also created an “apocalyptic” tag.
Labels: apocalyptic, film, television
Monday, October 20, 2008
Chaos theory against growth
I have unwittingly gone straight from one anti-growth BBC television documentary to another. “High Anxieties: The Mathematics of Chaos”, a one-off documentary by David Malone, achieves this effect by muddying the difference between the natural world and the social world. It starts by outlining how the Newtonian worldview was a relatively simply linear one which allowed for human beings to increase their control over nature. But the development of what later became known as chaos theory from Henri Poincaré (1854-1912), a French mathematician, onwards showed the world was both more complex than previously assumed and non-linear. This set up a phoney debate between environmentalists who recognised the need for caution and limits and economists who believed in growth. It ended with James Lovelock, a veteran environmentalist, arguing that with climate change we could, metaphorically speaking, be at the edge of a cliff and unable to return to normality.
Chaos theory may well be a good way to understand non-linear natural systems such as climate. But the social world is fundamentally different from the natural one. Society is composed of human beings with the potential to act consciously to mould the world around them.
Chaos theory may well be a good way to understand non-linear natural systems such as climate. But the social world is fundamentally different from the natural one. Society is composed of human beings with the potential to act consciously to mould the world around them.
Labels: economics, environment, growth, science, television
Sunday, October 19, 2008
A revisionist history of American plenty
Have just caught up with the first episode of Simon Schama’s BBC television documentary series on “The American Future: A History”. It might more accurately be called “reinterpreting American history to fit today’s culture of low expectations”.
The episode on “American plenty” focused on how America has, sensibly in Schama’s view, come to accept the need for limits. It starts symbolically with the Colorado river and expresses the view that “the land of plenty is running dry”. The building of the Hoover Dam and Lake Mead was basically presented as an act of hubris. Although it enabled the irrigation of several states and the creation of cities such as Las Vegas it was running dry as a result of over-use and climate change. The message was clear: America has to learn to live with fewer resources.
Schama presented the debate between expansion and restraint as a constant theme of American history. Expansion might have brought some short term gains in living standards but it was also responsible for such acts as the “ethnic cleansing” of native Americans. He also presented the 1980 American presidential election as a contest between the calls for restraint of Jimmy Carter and the drive for expansion by Ronald Reagan. He ended with the correct point that both main candidates this time around accept the need for restraint.
Schama’s history is a classic piece of growth scepticism. It downplays the huge benefits of economic growth and exaggerates the scale of problems that need to be overcome.
The episode on “American plenty” focused on how America has, sensibly in Schama’s view, come to accept the need for limits. It starts symbolically with the Colorado river and expresses the view that “the land of plenty is running dry”. The building of the Hoover Dam and Lake Mead was basically presented as an act of hubris. Although it enabled the irrigation of several states and the creation of cities such as Las Vegas it was running dry as a result of over-use and climate change. The message was clear: America has to learn to live with fewer resources.
Schama presented the debate between expansion and restraint as a constant theme of American history. Expansion might have brought some short term gains in living standards but it was also responsible for such acts as the “ethnic cleansing” of native Americans. He also presented the 1980 American presidential election as a contest between the calls for restraint of Jimmy Carter and the drive for expansion by Ronald Reagan. He ended with the correct point that both main candidates this time around accept the need for restraint.
Schama’s history is a classic piece of growth scepticism. It downplays the huge benefits of economic growth and exaggerates the scale of problems that need to be overcome.
Labels: America, economics, environment, growth, television, water
Friday, October 17, 2008
Appearance on Al Jazeera television news
This evening I was interviewed by Al Jazeera on this week’s market and economic developments.
Labels: economics, film, media appearances, television
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Media appearances
This week my recent Fund Strategy news analysis on the market meltdown (see 6 October post) was reproduced on Real Clear Markets while spiked ran an updated version of my review of Robert Reich’s Supercapitalism. I was also invited to appear on the Al Jazeera English TV station and Sky News but could not do either as I was in Dubai. It seems that I am at my most popular during a global financial crisis!
Labels: book, economics, finance, Fund Strategy, media appearances, review, spiked, television
Friday, September 26, 2008
BBC TV appearances
I am due to appear on BBC television this evening talking about the role of greed in the current financial crisis. Naturally I will be arguing that it is not the driving force behind the market turmoil. I am scheduled to be on BBC World at 7.30pm (London time) and later on the BBC News 24 channel.
Labels: economics, finance, media appearances, television
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Worldwrite launches news channel
Worldwrite has launched its Worldbytes television channel (see 28 August post). The first programme includes an item with me talking about poverty in London.
Labels: inequality, media appearances, television, Worldwrite
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Worldwrite to launch news channel
Worldwrite is to launch an online monthly video news channel called Worldbytes at 7pm (London time) on Friday 5 September. More details to follow but it promises to be a must watch programme with its staunchly pro-development stance and irreverent attitude to growth scepticism.
Labels: development, inequality, television, Worldwrite
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Britain From Above on TV
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
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Fetishising 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.
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
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Ehrenreich on American extremes
Barbara Ehrenreich, a prominent American activist and writer, has added her voice to the debate about inequality in America. This Land is Their Land (Metropolitan Books), her book on American extremes, seems to be receiving a lot of publicity. This includes an appearance on Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report.
Labels: America, book, inequality, television
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Mistaken assumptions on climate change
Burn-up, BBC 2’s big budget eco-thriller on the oil companies and runaway climate change, was awful in every way: as a drama, politically and in relation to the science. Rob Johnston on spiked has written an incisive review but it is worth outlining the key misconceptions embodied in the drama as they are common in the green mindset:
* It is assumed that there is no question that runaway warming (not just climate change) is happening. Catastrophe is imminent. A worst case scenario is presented as indisputable fact.
* Corporations are driven by greed in their ruthless pursuit of oil. In this sense attacks on capitalism are moral (it is driven by bad people) rather than linked to the pursuit of profit in itself. Companies and the economy are “addicted” to oil. (Insurance companies are a partial exception as they are suffering big losses as a result of climate change).
* The role of corporate lobbyists is to shed doubt on “the science”. They play the pernicious role of generating uncertainty and may engage in “greenwash” to improve their clients’ images.
* Deep down America knows that climate change is bad but it should help further its drive for global domination.
* Britain is on the right side but ineffectual.
* China is duplicitous – playing America against Europe to further its own interests,
* The only way to deal with climate change is to cut emissions. Adaptation is hardly discussed at all let along geo-engineering.
Sadly such mistaken views are widely held in the climate change debate.
* It is assumed that there is no question that runaway warming (not just climate change) is happening. Catastrophe is imminent. A worst case scenario is presented as indisputable fact.
* Corporations are driven by greed in their ruthless pursuit of oil. In this sense attacks on capitalism are moral (it is driven by bad people) rather than linked to the pursuit of profit in itself. Companies and the economy are “addicted” to oil. (Insurance companies are a partial exception as they are suffering big losses as a result of climate change).
* The role of corporate lobbyists is to shed doubt on “the science”. They play the pernicious role of generating uncertainty and may engage in “greenwash” to improve their clients’ images.
* Deep down America knows that climate change is bad but it should help further its drive for global domination.
* Britain is on the right side but ineffectual.
* China is duplicitous – playing America against Europe to further its own interests,
* The only way to deal with climate change is to cut emissions. Adaptation is hardly discussed at all let along geo-engineering.
Sadly such mistaken views are widely held in the climate change debate.
Labels: climate, environment, review, science, spiked, television
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Me on China on Friction TV
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
Friday, June 27, 2008
Indians and chickens
After writing my piece on the campaign against the use of Indian child labour by suppliers to Primark (see 24 June post) an interesting parrallel occurred to me. It seems to me there are similarities between the campaign to “save” Indian children with Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s campaign for chicken welfare at Tesco. Both sets of campaigners see themselves as superior beings protecting lower creatures from the forces of greed.
Labels: consumption, ethics, food, india, television
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Against ethical consumerism
Spiked has published an article by me on the recent documentaries on child labour in India. It argues that ethical consumerism is nauseatingly elitist.
Labels: consumption, ethics, india, spiked, television
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Protection harms workers
It is becoming increasingly clear how mainstream concern for labour standards has become (see 6 May 2008 post). It used to be the case that radicals would typically support workers in their struggles against employers. Today self-appointed defenders of labour standards seek to protect employees against greedy companies. In the past it was about expressing solidarity for workers’ battles today it is primarily a case of using state institutions to defend employees as victims. The two notions could not be more different.
Two recent examples of how this works. The awful British fashion brats from BBC3’s Blood, Sweat and T-shirts (see 18 April 2008 post) appearing on Newsnight to talk about labour standards in the developing world. The group were at best gormless (wearing an £800 bracelet while working in an Indian cotton factory) and more often contemptuous of their Indian hosts. Yet they somehow have the moral authority to talk about Indian labour standards on a premier news programme.
A more perceptive piece by TA Frank, a former sweatshop inspector, appears in the April issue of Washington Monthly. Among other things it reminds readers that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have criticised trade deals as unfair to American workers while arguing for future agreements to have higher labour standards. It also makes the point that Robert Reich started cracking down on American sweatshop when he was labor secretary in the Clinton administration.
It is hard to think of many things more nauseating than protectionism masquerading as support for workers. Nor, as some of the Indian workers featured in Blood, Sweat and T-shirts pointed out, is it as simply as banning child labour in the developing world. The alternative for many child workers and their families is often extreme hardship and even starvation. The solution is economic development in the poorer countries. Child labour is rare when countries become rich.
Two recent examples of how this works. The awful British fashion brats from BBC3’s Blood, Sweat and T-shirts (see 18 April 2008 post) appearing on Newsnight to talk about labour standards in the developing world. The group were at best gormless (wearing an £800 bracelet while working in an Indian cotton factory) and more often contemptuous of their Indian hosts. Yet they somehow have the moral authority to talk about Indian labour standards on a premier news programme.
A more perceptive piece by TA Frank, a former sweatshop inspector, appears in the April issue of Washington Monthly. Among other things it reminds readers that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have criticised trade deals as unfair to American workers while arguing for future agreements to have higher labour standards. It also makes the point that Robert Reich started cracking down on American sweatshop when he was labor secretary in the Clinton administration.
It is hard to think of many things more nauseating than protectionism masquerading as support for workers. Nor, as some of the Indian workers featured in Blood, Sweat and T-shirts pointed out, is it as simply as banning child labour in the developing world. The alternative for many child workers and their families is often extreme hardship and even starvation. The solution is economic development in the poorer countries. Child labour is rare when countries become rich.
Labels: development, ethics, india, inequality, television
Friday, April 18, 2008
Spoilt fashion brats visit India
Ceri Dingle of Worldwrite has previewed a BBC documentary series on six fashion designers who visit India to work for firms producing clothes for the British high street. Evidently the young British brats cannot even sew straight and are contemptuous of Indians. The views of the Indian clothing workers are not even represented on screen. Blood, Sweat and T-Shirts starts at 9pm on Tuesday 22 April on BBC Three.
Labels: india, review, television, Worldwrite
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Discussing the G8 on internet TV
I appeared last night on 18 Doughty Street, an internet television channel, discussing a range of topics related to the recent G8 summit of world leaders. The other panellists on the Claire Fox News programme were Deepak Lal and Stuart Simpson. The programme can be watched by clicking: here.
Labels: development, globalisation, media appearances, television
Friday, April 27, 2007
TV documentary on human footprint
I was planning to do a brief review of last night’s television programme on the human footprint. The programme reduces human life to consumption and waste. To quote the Channel 4 website: “From our babyhood – when we get through a massive 3,796 nappies and produce 254 litres of urine – through to our old age and death – by which time we will have had sex 4,239 times, eaten 10,866 carrots, taken 7,163 baths and done an average of 15 farts a day – this extraordinary film tells the story of an average life, the story of our human footprint.”
However, James Heartfield has saved me the trouble with an excellent review on spiked. He points out that humans have a productive and creative side rather than simply being consumers. It also includes a useful reference to his critique of Herbert Giradet on sustainability along with Giradet’s reply.
However, James Heartfield has saved me the trouble with an excellent review on spiked. He points out that humans have a productive and creative side rather than simply being consumers. It also includes a useful reference to his critique of Herbert Giradet on sustainability along with Giradet’s reply.
Labels: footprint, spiked, sustainability, television
Sunday, March 18, 2007
The Trap fails to address inequality
This week’s episode of The Trap, part two of the three part documentary by Adam Curtis, failed to convincingly link paranoid man with rising inequality (see posts of 11 and 12 March). The first 45 minutes of the hour-long programme elaborated on the last week’s theme of how the idea of rational selfish individuals arose during the Cold War (including John Nash, James Buchanan and Tom Peters). It also showed how institutions such as the National Health Service were reformed to incorporate these ideas in the 1990s. Only then, three quarters of the way through the programme, did it make a tenuous link with inequality through the mechanism of school league tables. Rich individuals, it pointed out, could afford to buy houses in areas with top-performing schools. As soon as it made this point it quickly moved on to inequality in America and then onto the idea of corruption. It ended by questioning the science of the “selfish gene” and describing how behavioural economics is gaining in popularity. So literally only a few minutes of an hour-long programme even attempted to demonstrate the link between “rational economic man” and inequality.
Labels: corruption, economics, inequality, television
Monday, March 12, 2007
Paranoid man has long history
Chris Dillow, author of the stumblingandmumbling blog, has written an entry questioning the intellectual history in last night’s Adam Curtis documentary (see yesterday’s dispatch). Dillow points out that the theory of people as selfish and paranoid dates back to Leviathan (1651) by Thomas Hobbes rather than the Cold War. The notion of self-interest generating social order is to be found in Berenard Mandeville's Fable of the Bees (1714). Another flaw, Dillow argues, is that:
“Economists' scepticism about the possibility of a common interest doesn't just arise from a cynical view of human nature. It stems also from the problem of aggregating preferences - as Kenneth Arrow showed in his impossibility theorem. But then, Arrow was no rightist cold warrior, so he doesn't fit Curtis's template.”
“Economists' scepticism about the possibility of a common interest doesn't just arise from a cynical view of human nature. It stems also from the problem of aggregating preferences - as Kenneth Arrow showed in his impossibility theorem. But then, Arrow was no rightist cold warrior, so he doesn't fit Curtis's template.”
Labels: economics, television
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Adam Curtis documentary on freedom
The first episode of The Trap: What Happened to Our Dreams of Freedom?, a BBC2 documentary by Adam Curtis, was characteristically wide-ranging and thought provoking. It showed how a particular notion of freedom evolved during the Cold War which emphasised the importance of the rational individual against ideas of the public interest or altruism. Curtis linked this idea of rational individuals to the free market economics of Friedrich Hayek, game theory (eg John Nash), public choice theory (eg James Buchanan) and the anti-psychiatry movement of RD Laing. Other manifestations of this idea include privatisation and the “internal market” within the National Health Service. TV programmes such as Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister, written by an adviser to Margaret Thatcher, also embody the idea that a unified public interest is a myth. Instead institutions have to be devised to ensure that individuals respond to rational incentives. Next week Curtis will evidently go on to show how the popularisation of such ideas led to a widening of inequality.
Labels: economics, inequality, television
Panorama on "ethical man"
Just managed to catch up on the BBC Panorama programme “Go green or else!” on a year in the life of “ethical man” (currently available to view on the internet). The programme is itself a recycling of the regular items by Justin Rowlatt on the BBC Newsnight programme over the past year. Rowlatt and his family cut back on consumption over the year including ditching their car, forsaking air travel, eating fewer animal products, recycling and even urinating on their compost heap. The aim, which they achieved, was to cut the family’s carbon footprint by 20% over the year. They also made significant financial savings along the way.
The problems with this approach are straightforward. It is obviously possible to save money if you are prepared to accept austerity. But why should people have to do without cars, air travel or meat? Even cutting back on such consumption is not desirable.
More fundamentally the programme looked at the question entirely from the perspective of personal consumption. Tackling climate change meant individuals and families consuming less. The possibility of producing more energy, for example through nuclear energy or hydroelectric power, was ruled out of the discussion by the framework of the programme itself.
The programme’s “carbon guru” was Professor Tim Jackson of Surrey University. His website includes several papers putting sustainable consumption and sustainability more generally into a more theoretical context.
The problems with this approach are straightforward. It is obviously possible to save money if you are prepared to accept austerity. But why should people have to do without cars, air travel or meat? Even cutting back on such consumption is not desirable.
More fundamentally the programme looked at the question entirely from the perspective of personal consumption. Tackling climate change meant individuals and families consuming less. The possibility of producing more energy, for example through nuclear energy or hydroelectric power, was ruled out of the discussion by the framework of the programme itself.
The programme’s “carbon guru” was Professor Tim Jackson of Surrey University. His website includes several papers putting sustainable consumption and sustainability more generally into a more theoretical context.
Labels: climate, consumption, economics, environment, sustainability, television
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Debating air taxes on Sky News
This morning I appeared on Sky News debating Friends of the Earth on the raising of air taxes which came into effect today. I argued against the taxes on two grounds. First, they were in effect a form of rationing which would discourage people from flying. Second, to the extent that climate change is a problem the solution lies with investment in technological innovation. Friends of the Earth argued the taxes were welcome but the proceeds should be earmarked for green purposes.
Interestingly the Friends of the Earth representative made a big point of insisting that the science on climate change was certain and the Stern review proved it. Of course he did not make clear what exactly was certain. That the earth is warming? That humans are responsible? That catastrophe is imminent? That rationing is the only way forward? It seemed to me what was really being said was that it is illegitimate to challenge the consensus that there should be natural limits on human behaviour. In other words what is really being pushed is not scientific truth but a morality of low expectations.
Interestingly the Friends of the Earth representative made a big point of insisting that the science on climate change was certain and the Stern review proved it. Of course he did not make clear what exactly was certain. That the earth is warming? That humans are responsible? That catastrophe is imminent? That rationing is the only way forward? It seemed to me what was really being said was that it is illegitimate to challenge the consensus that there should be natural limits on human behaviour. In other words what is really being pushed is not scientific truth but a morality of low expectations.
Labels: climate, environment, media appearances, television
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Climate change at Exxon
Another sign of the shift in the climate change debate towards a “pro-mitigation” consensus (see dispatch of 15 August 2006). Exxon, often reviled by environmentalists, has subtly shifted its position according to todays’s Wall Street Journal Europe (subscription required to read articles):
“The changes in Exxon's words and actions are nuanced. The oil giant continues to note uncertainties in climate science. It continues to oppose the Kyoto Protocol, the international global-warming treaty that limits emissions from industrialized countries that have ratified it. It also stresses that any future carbon policy should include developing countries, where emissions are rising fastest.
“Still, the company's subtle softening is significant and reflects a gathering trend among much of U.S. industry, from utilities to auto makers. While many continue to oppose caps, these companies expect the country will impose mandatory global-warming-emission constraints at some point, so they are lining up to try to shape any mandate so they escape with minimum economic pain.
“Exxon has stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based think tank that last year ran television ads saying that carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, is helpful. After funding them previously, Exxon decided in late 2005 not to fund for 2006 CEI and "five or six" other groups active in the global-warming debate, Kenneth Cohen, Exxon's vice president for public affairs, confirmed this week in an interview at Exxon's headquarters in Irving, Texas. He declined to identify the groups beyond CEI; their names are expected to become public in the spring, when Exxon releases its annual list of donations to nonprofit groups.”
“The changes in Exxon's words and actions are nuanced. The oil giant continues to note uncertainties in climate science. It continues to oppose the Kyoto Protocol, the international global-warming treaty that limits emissions from industrialized countries that have ratified it. It also stresses that any future carbon policy should include developing countries, where emissions are rising fastest.
“Still, the company's subtle softening is significant and reflects a gathering trend among much of U.S. industry, from utilities to auto makers. While many continue to oppose caps, these companies expect the country will impose mandatory global-warming-emission constraints at some point, so they are lining up to try to shape any mandate so they escape with minimum economic pain.
“Exxon has stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based think tank that last year ran television ads saying that carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, is helpful. After funding them previously, Exxon decided in late 2005 not to fund for 2006 CEI and "five or six" other groups active in the global-warming debate, Kenneth Cohen, Exxon's vice president for public affairs, confirmed this week in an interview at Exxon's headquarters in Irving, Texas. He declined to identify the groups beyond CEI; their names are expected to become public in the spring, when Exxon releases its annual list of donations to nonprofit groups.”
Labels: climate, corporations, energy, environment, television
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Free marketeer has left a strange legacy
There follows a comment by me on the legacy of Milton Friedman from the 20 November issue of Fund Strategy.
Few people under the age of 40 are likely to have heard of Milton Friedman, the doyen of free market economics who died last week. Friedman was one of the key intellectual forces behind what became known as the Thatcher revolution in Britain and the Reagan revolution in America. Yet, given recent developments, his corpse is probably already spinning.
Friedman, who won a Nobel prize in 1976, was partly known as a formidable technical economist. Much of his work focused on the relationship between the money supply and economic activity.
One conclusion he drew was that America's Federal Reserve was largely responsible for the Great Depression of the 1930s. Although it had the means, it lacked the will to inject sufficient liquidity into the system when it was needed. This conclusion points to another key theme of Friedman's work: scepticism about the role of the state in resolving economic problems.
But Friedman was not just an academic. He played a key role in popularising his ideas in newspapers and television programmes. For instance, his Free to Choose documentary series was broadcast by the BBC in 1980. Many others also promoted his ideas in the free-market upsurge of the time.
Yet although Friedman is often associated with the Conservative party under Margaret Thatcher, it was Labour that first started to implement his ideas. As Samuel Brittan, a veteran Financial Times columnist, has pointed out, it was James Callaghan, then prime minister, who argued in 1976 that governments could not spend their way into full employment.
In practice this meant pursuing cuts in public spending, along with pay restraint, to deal with what was then called "stagflation" - an ugly combination of stagnation and high inflation.
Where Labour led the Conservatives followed with fervour. What became known as "Thatcherism" involved attacks on public-sector workers and trade unions. In the process the idea that "There is No Alternative" to the market - dubbed "Tina" - was popularised. Socialism and Keynesianism were both discredited in the process.
The great irony of this development was that it robbed conservatism of a sense of purpose. The attack on the unions and the comparisons with the Soviet bloc provided conservatives with a mission. In contrast, today we have a strange combination of Tina without any sense of direction.
The result is a peculiar pro-market anti-capitalism. Capitalism is seen as creating enormous problems - climate change being the most popular current example - but at the same time there is no alternative vision. The result is a popular mood of gloom and despondency. Friedman has left a strange legacy.
Few people under the age of 40 are likely to have heard of Milton Friedman, the doyen of free market economics who died last week. Friedman was one of the key intellectual forces behind what became known as the Thatcher revolution in Britain and the Reagan revolution in America. Yet, given recent developments, his corpse is probably already spinning.
Friedman, who won a Nobel prize in 1976, was partly known as a formidable technical economist. Much of his work focused on the relationship between the money supply and economic activity.
One conclusion he drew was that America's Federal Reserve was largely responsible for the Great Depression of the 1930s. Although it had the means, it lacked the will to inject sufficient liquidity into the system when it was needed. This conclusion points to another key theme of Friedman's work: scepticism about the role of the state in resolving economic problems.
But Friedman was not just an academic. He played a key role in popularising his ideas in newspapers and television programmes. For instance, his Free to Choose documentary series was broadcast by the BBC in 1980. Many others also promoted his ideas in the free-market upsurge of the time.
Yet although Friedman is often associated with the Conservative party under Margaret Thatcher, it was Labour that first started to implement his ideas. As Samuel Brittan, a veteran Financial Times columnist, has pointed out, it was James Callaghan, then prime minister, who argued in 1976 that governments could not spend their way into full employment.
In practice this meant pursuing cuts in public spending, along with pay restraint, to deal with what was then called "stagflation" - an ugly combination of stagnation and high inflation.
Where Labour led the Conservatives followed with fervour. What became known as "Thatcherism" involved attacks on public-sector workers and trade unions. In the process the idea that "There is No Alternative" to the market - dubbed "Tina" - was popularised. Socialism and Keynesianism were both discredited in the process.
The great irony of this development was that it robbed conservatism of a sense of purpose. The attack on the unions and the comparisons with the Soviet bloc provided conservatives with a mission. In contrast, today we have a strange combination of Tina without any sense of direction.
The result is a peculiar pro-market anti-capitalism. Capitalism is seen as creating enormous problems - climate change being the most popular current example - but at the same time there is no alternative vision. The result is a popular mood of gloom and despondency. Friedman has left a strange legacy.
Labels: America, economics, Fund Strategy, television
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Debating the "climate revolution" on Sky TV
I appeared on Sky News again this morning debating Ashok Sinha of Stop Climate Chaos. The subject of the debate was the announcement by David Miliband, the environment secretary, of a “climate revolution”. At the time of broadcast it was not clear what this would involve but it seems certain to be centred on the government’s favoured approaches of rationing and behaviour modification. Evidently he also wants to reward companies for energy efficiency rather than energy production.
I made the point that a strategy based on rationing was undesirable and unviable. Over time we will inevitably use more energy even if we become more energy efficient. The challenge is to make society richer so that it is better able to deal with climate change and other problems it faces.
I made the point that a strategy based on rationing was undesirable and unviable. Over time we will inevitably use more energy even if we become more energy efficient. The challenge is to make society richer so that it is better able to deal with climate change and other problems it faces.
Labels: climate, environment, media appearances, television
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Attacks on air travel
Air travel is becoming a particular target for climate change campaigners. Although air transport currently only accounts for a small percentage of global emissions the proportion is expected to rise rapidly in the coming years. The question is discussed in more detail in a report (PDF) from Oxford University's Environmental Change Institute published yesterday. It also had extensive media coverage including an item with BBC Newsnight’s “ethical man”.
Although the subject demands detailed examination some reasons to question the consensus are already clear. Certainly the argument that most flyers are relatively rich - which is no doubt true - should not be used against cheap flights. The point is that more people than ever can afford to fly and that number should be increased much further. Mobility has both enormous economic benefits and is a key component of freedom.
Paul Charles, a spokesman for Virgin Atlantic, also makes a good point in an article on the report on BBC online: "We've suggested starting grids at airports, so that planes don't have to run their engines for half an hour all the way to the runway while they're queuing up. That will cut millions of tonnes of CO2 emissions." So building larger and better airports could help reduce emissions.
No doubt over time aircraft engines can also be made even cleaner and more efficient. They are already much better than they used to be and this trend will continue.
Brendan O’Neill has written an article on the snobbery surrounding cheap flights on spiked and there is a debate on the subject at the Battle of Ideas.
Although the subject demands detailed examination some reasons to question the consensus are already clear. Certainly the argument that most flyers are relatively rich - which is no doubt true - should not be used against cheap flights. The point is that more people than ever can afford to fly and that number should be increased much further. Mobility has both enormous economic benefits and is a key component of freedom.
Paul Charles, a spokesman for Virgin Atlantic, also makes a good point in an article on the report on BBC online: "We've suggested starting grids at airports, so that planes don't have to run their engines for half an hour all the way to the runway while they're queuing up. That will cut millions of tonnes of CO2 emissions." So building larger and better airports could help reduce emissions.
No doubt over time aircraft engines can also be made even cleaner and more efficient. They are already much better than they used to be and this trend will continue.
Brendan O’Neill has written an article on the snobbery surrounding cheap flights on spiked and there is a debate on the subject at the Battle of Ideas.
Labels: speeches, television, transport
Friday, October 13, 2006
Debating climate change on Sky News
This morning I appeared on Sky News debating the economics of climate change with Friends of the Earth. The environmentalist group had commissioned a report from Tufts university (PDF) which argued that immediate action was needed to stop climate change becoming a catastrophic problem. My counter-argument was that the richer we are as a society the better able we should be to tackle climate change and other challenges facing humanity. The debate can be viewed on YouTube by clicking here
Labels: climate, media appearances, television
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
How not to argue on climate change
I hesitate to write too much on climate change because it could easily become a full-time preoccupation. But given it is increasingly used as the ultimate argument against affluence it is difficult to avoid devoting time to it.
George Monbiot’s new book on climate change, serialised in three parts in the Guardian, provides a model of how not to conduct the debate. Yesterday there was an article on 'the denial industry' which focused on ExxonMobil. He made a similar film for the BBC Newsnight programme which was broadcast this evening. The main point of both was that ExxonMobil is financing “climate change deniers” – including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, the Reason Foundation and the Independent Institute – to misrepresent the truth on climate change in order to protect its profits.
There are two reasons why this argument is flawed. First, the fact that anyone receives finance from a particular source, even one with a vested interest, does not prove that an argument is wrong. I could be paid by the Devil Inc to produce this website but that does not invalidate my arguments (as it happens I am entirely self-financed). Second, it is misleading to talk to climate change “denial”. Only a lunatic would deny that the climate is changing and most specialists seem to accept that humans have played a role in warming. What needs to be debated is the character of the change (a scientific question) and how best to respond to it (a political question).
Monbiot cites a website with the sole aim of exposing Exxon . He has also set up a new website of his own , along with Mark Lynas and Joss Garman, to argue solely on climate change. There is also a speaking tour on the book.
George Monbiot’s new book on climate change, serialised in three parts in the Guardian, provides a model of how not to conduct the debate. Yesterday there was an article on 'the denial industry' which focused on ExxonMobil. He made a similar film for the BBC Newsnight programme which was broadcast this evening. The main point of both was that ExxonMobil is financing “climate change deniers” – including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, the Reason Foundation and the Independent Institute – to misrepresent the truth on climate change in order to protect its profits.
There are two reasons why this argument is flawed. First, the fact that anyone receives finance from a particular source, even one with a vested interest, does not prove that an argument is wrong. I could be paid by the Devil Inc to produce this website but that does not invalidate my arguments (as it happens I am entirely self-financed). Second, it is misleading to talk to climate change “denial”. Only a lunatic would deny that the climate is changing and most specialists seem to accept that humans have played a role in warming. What needs to be debated is the character of the change (a scientific question) and how best to respond to it (a political question).
Monbiot cites a website with the sole aim of exposing Exxon . He has also set up a new website of his own , along with Mark Lynas and Joss Garman, to argue solely on climate change. There is also a speaking tour on the book.
Labels: book, climate, corporations, environment, film, television
Monday, September 18, 2006
Global warming: time for a heated debate
Spiked has today published my review of An Inconvenient Truth. In it I argue that Al Gore’s dogmatic documentary embodies the worst possible response to climate change. It can be found by clicking on the appropriate link in the reviews section on the bar on the left hand side of this site.
However, as a critique of Gore’s pretentious style it is hard to do better than South Park. An Inconvenient Truth was ruthlessly lampooned in its episode on ManBearPig.
However, as a critique of Gore’s pretentious style it is hard to do better than South Park. An Inconvenient Truth was ruthlessly lampooned in its episode on ManBearPig.
Labels: climate, film, review, spiked, television
Thursday, July 20, 2006
The cult of anti-materialism
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?
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
