Friday, January 02, 2009
Phoney ambition 2009
Andrew Simms, the policy director of the New Economics Foundation (NEF), provides a typical example of environmentalism’s phoney ambition in his New Year’s Day comment piece for Britain’s Guardian newspaper. In response to what he calls “climate upheaval” he urges readers to: “squeeze those eyes open to 2009, and history tells us great things are possible. We are still in control. We just need to build, rapidly, new energy and transport systems and change our behaviour.”
Simms is certainly right when he points to the great achievements of the Victorian engineers of the mid-nineteenth century. But their goal was to build huge amounts of railway track to enhance mobility. In contrast, he says in his article he wants to “get people out of their cars”. Although Simms says he supports cleaner transport as an alternative it is hard to avoid the conclusion that he is anti-mobility, or at least would like to see it restricted, given his opposition to cars along with the NEF’s emphasis on local communities. A similarly narrow attitude is apparent in the emphasis on renewable energy when more high technology sources are needed to provide the world with the energy it needs.
Simms is certainly right when he points to the great achievements of the Victorian engineers of the mid-nineteenth century. But their goal was to build huge amounts of railway track to enhance mobility. In contrast, he says in his article he wants to “get people out of their cars”. Although Simms says he supports cleaner transport as an alternative it is hard to avoid the conclusion that he is anti-mobility, or at least would like to see it restricted, given his opposition to cars along with the NEF’s emphasis on local communities. A similarly narrow attitude is apparent in the emphasis on renewable energy when more high technology sources are needed to provide the world with the energy it needs.
Labels: climate, economics, energy, environment, transport
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Origins of the congestion charge
Those of you who attended the Bookshop Barnie at the London School of Economics last Thursday may be interested in a side argument we had on the intellectual origins of London’s traffic congestion charge. Some described it as “state socialist” while I said I thought I remember that Milton Friedman, a free market economics guru, had come up with the idea. It turns out that it is true that some articles attribute to Friedman although according to a journal article (PDF) dug up by Austin Williams on road pricing the origin of the discussion is more complex. In any case it should be clear it is not accurate to describe it as a “socialist” measure.
Labels: cities, economics, transport
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Growth scepticism hits the roads
Kevin Watkins, now at Oxford University’s global economic governance programme but formerly at the United Nations Development Programme and Oxfam, had a comment in yesterday’s Guardian on the scourge of traffic accidents in developing countries. Sadly he used the opportunity to take a side swipe at economic growth while also implicitly calling for more external intervention into poor countries:
“Why, then, are governments failing to protect their citizens? Partly because the victims lack a political voice. But often traffic death and injury is viewed as the inevitable collateral damage that comes with economic growth.”
Surely the key problem is that such countries do not have the resources to provide adequate safety measures. In that sense it is a problem that comes with insufficient economic growth. No doubt the more affluent such countries become they better able they will be to provide a better infrastructure for their inhabitants.
“Why, then, are governments failing to protect their citizens? Partly because the victims lack a political voice. But often traffic death and injury is viewed as the inevitable collateral damage that comes with economic growth.”
Surely the key problem is that such countries do not have the resources to provide adequate safety measures. In that sense it is a problem that comes with insufficient economic growth. No doubt the more affluent such countries become they better able they will be to provide a better infrastructure for their inhabitants.
Labels: development, growth, transport
Friday, February 23, 2007
New Scientist on cleaner flying
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
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
A robust defence of air travel
An interesting article defending flying as one of the greenest ways to travel in today’s Guardian. Among the arguments put forward by Giovanni Bisignani, the director-general and chief executive officer of the International Air Transport Association:
* Air travel currently accounts for only 2% of global carbon emissions.
* The International Panel on Climate Change estimates the proportion could rise to 3% by 2050.
* Fuel efficiency has improved immensely over the past 40 years.
* European air traffic control wastes fuel because there are 34 different navigation providers.
* 28m jobs and $3 trillion in economic activity (8% of global GDP) would disappear if airline flights were stopped - never mind foreign holidays.
* Air travel currently accounts for only 2% of global carbon emissions.
* The International Panel on Climate Change estimates the proportion could rise to 3% by 2050.
* Fuel efficiency has improved immensely over the past 40 years.
* European air traffic control wastes fuel because there are 34 different navigation providers.
* 28m jobs and $3 trillion in economic activity (8% of global GDP) would disappear if airline flights were stopped - never mind foreign holidays.
Labels: climate, energy, environment, transport
Monday, November 06, 2006
A plane clever idea
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
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
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Spiked article on modernity and 9/11
I have a short article on Spiked on how hostility to modernity has become embedded in Western society (pasted below). It is part of a collection of articles looking at the fifth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks:
What strikes me as most odd about the response to the 9/11 attacks was their representation as a specifically Islamic fundamentalist reaction to modernity. They were seen as mainly rooted in the caves of Afghanistan, the madrassas (Islamic schools) of Pakistan, and the desert sheikdom of Saudi Arabia. Hardly anyone seemed to notice that hostility to modernity has become mainstream in Western culture.
The enormous gains of civilisation are constantly being called into question. What were once, rightly, seen as huge benefits to humanity are now viewed with anxiety. The water that we drink and use to clean ourselves is seen as a scarce resource. Cheap food – which has liberated us from the curse of constantly living on the edge of starvation – is blamed for causing obesity. Long-distance travel is stigmatised. Cars are blamed for causing pollution and contributing to global warming. Aircraft are also accused of damaging the environment and the passengers they carry are criticised for undermining local cultures.
Attacks on modernity have their origins in the West rather than the Middle East. If a war is to be fought it should be against the ideology of anti-modernism emanating from Western societies.
What strikes me as most odd about the response to the 9/11 attacks was their representation as a specifically Islamic fundamentalist reaction to modernity. They were seen as mainly rooted in the caves of Afghanistan, the madrassas (Islamic schools) of Pakistan, and the desert sheikdom of Saudi Arabia. Hardly anyone seemed to notice that hostility to modernity has become mainstream in Western culture.
The enormous gains of civilisation are constantly being called into question. What were once, rightly, seen as huge benefits to humanity are now viewed with anxiety. The water that we drink and use to clean ourselves is seen as a scarce resource. Cheap food – which has liberated us from the curse of constantly living on the edge of starvation – is blamed for causing obesity. Long-distance travel is stigmatised. Cars are blamed for causing pollution and contributing to global warming. Aircraft are also accused of damaging the environment and the passengers they carry are criticised for undermining local cultures.
Attacks on modernity have their origins in the West rather than the Middle East. If a war is to be fought it should be against the ideology of anti-modernism emanating from Western societies.
Labels: modernity, spiked, transport
Monday, August 14, 2006
Planes as symbols of modernity
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):
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.
“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
Saturday, August 05, 2006
A flying shame
Changing attitudes to flying are lamented by Brendan O’Neill, the deputy editor of Spiked, in the Guardian’s comment is free. Once it was seen by some as “the epitome of breaking new worlds”. More recently it has even been portrayed as akin to child abuse because of the impact on climate change. Even mainstream commentators often see flying as somehow sinful. Another sad case of a profoundly positive development being recast as a problem.
