Reason in the Mass Media World

We live in interesting times! The information on offer is not as widespread as some would believe (most people log on and read only what they want to know!), but it’s a improvement on before, for sure. In the context of Reason, this means that the rational person has far more views to balance, far more opinions to take into consideration. Keeping control of these and staying within the realms of science and logic is therefore quite a challenge!

 

A major concern in this day and age is the ease with which people can now publish or broadcast material that is utterly unverified. The tabloids have become experts (front page one week; apology in small print on page 52 the next!) and have relatively little fear of rebuke or punishment.1 Just like the lobbyists we discuss in my article ‘Legalised Corruption’, money comes before pride, decency or professionalism.

 

Often, the truth is not quite as certain and reason is therefore the ability to form a calculated opinion. If a friend provided you with 100 statements – 99 true and 1 false – you would most likely still value their judgment and put the inaccuracy down to a mistake, or even perhaps a deliberate fudge to complete the overall picture.

 

However one concludes it, this is a situation we face quite often in our mass media world. A useful ‘celebrity’ example is the work of Michael Moore. The man is undoubtedly uncouth, abrupt and guilty of ‘hamming up’ his films to great effect. His interviews are not always completely fair and he most certainly edits clips to suit his argument. By any token, he is a better film-maker than investigate journalist. I do not accept, “What does it matter; it’s just a movie?!” as an excuse2.

 

Yet, accommodating all of this, I will stand in Moore’s defence. He has brought world attention to the disgraceful actions of President Bush; the lack of US interest in climate change; the appalling US gun laws and corrupt lobby that endorses them; the tragic state of US healthcare; and much more besides. We learn from his work and I have no issue with him making money pursuing his career, although I would certainly feel better if he tidied up (the films and his shirts).

 

This is ‘Big Picture Thinking’ and it’s about finding a balance. Sadly, many struggle to do that and will ‘talk the talk’ from their armchair all day long!

 

The Green Lobby in most countries has been immense: standing firm under ridicule for many years. I can not agree, however, with their seemingly anti-science rational behind the campaigns against GM Foods, numerous renewable energy developments and even nuclear power. I address the GM debate in ‘Entering the Brave New World of GM Crops’ and would request of the opposition groups their considered views.

 

The nuclear debate is a fascinating one. Many of those who marched on Greenham Common are now advocating fission energy as the only viable source of low carbon power3. There are still security (weapons, not terrorism) and storage issues, but, as a child of the 80s and 90s, I have never been sure why nuclear has had such a bad rap!

 

Biofuels are an energy source that provide the contrary story. Overhyped as the Earth’s savior for a short period (whilst investors piled in, land was purchased, etc) until somebody politely commented that the land was needed for food, or we’d have even bigger problems ahead.

 

These are just a few vignettes with the same simple conclusion: we must put our faith in science and reason and focus on the ‘big picture’. Concurrently, we must be wary of dogma; and those who go too far or act without all of the evidence being assessed. Anyone that states ‘the truth does not matter if the case is just’ is far too like a religious fanatic for my liking.

 

 

---

1 An interesting further debate is that over the legality of newspaper-speak. Should the paper be prosecuted if something is known to be untrue, should journalists be punished for libel more often, etc??

2 And that equally applies to the ‘movie-history’ of Pearl Harbour, Braveheart et al

3 Expanded on in Sustainable Energy

Religion: There are Different Kinds of Truths!!

The title is a statement made by Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford[1]. Typical of any intelligent theist, he claims that “some of the Old Testament is literal, some isn’t” and insists that “Christians know what to believe and what not to”. For me, this logical non-sequitur sums it up! He might understand, but his flock doesn’t: in fact, they believe, and teach their children, quite the opposite.

 

What used to be ‘God’s divine creation’ eventually became ‘God’s will’ or the equally ambiguous ‘God works in mysterious ways’. As evolution was fully understood (well, by some), this was diluted even further to something like ‘God let it be’, meaning that he handed over the reins to mankind. It is terribly convenient that God has slowly lessened his grip, especially considering that, of all the processes to choose for the world (his 9th fresh planet that year I hasten to add) he selected evolution, a particularly slow, disjointed and cruel method. Why not just put us all here in the first place?!

 

Caught between being a very stupid Christian and an enlightened critic of the Bible, Harries holds an extremely precarious middle ground, insisting that, as has now become cliché, “God’s day may not be a human day”.

 

Importantly, as we develop and hopefully improve our knowledge as human beings, we have absolutely no need to revert to the bible, for re-interpretation and thus concord on our modern morals and actions. Give it up, Richard!

 

Dr Fern Elsdon-Baker, head of the Darwin Now Project, recently commented that, “the most encouraging aspect of the [recent Mori] survey shows that whilst there are diverse views on Darwin’s theory of evolution, there appears to a broad acceptance that science and faith do not have to be in conflict.” It must get uncomfortable on that fence …

 

The truth is: there is only one truth … and a mass of opinions and conjecture to go with it. We all must choose a path …

 

---

[1] In a debate with Richard Dawkins and Jeremy Paxman

Religion: The Desire for an Apocalypse

That title sounds ludicrous, but please don’t believe this is a marginal viewpoint. We are fully aware of Jihad (Holy War), but rarely publicized is the Christian belief in The End of Days. The very basics, as I understand them:

 

Þ     Jesus will return to earth when certain preconditions have been met, such as the establishment of a state of Israel on its ‘Biblical lands’ (you see, that is why right-wing Christianity gives so much support to Israel)

Þ     But wait, the legions of the Antichrist will then be deployed against Israel, and their war will lead to a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon

Þ     But it’s alright, because before this almighty battle kicks off, all ‘true believers’ will be lifted out of their clothes and wafted up to heaven during an event called the ‘Rapture’

 

Alongside keeping a careful eye on your children, I would suggest staying up to date with http://www.raptureready.com/, so you know when you might be needed.

 

OK, but why am I wasting your time with an American freak-show. Because, as noted above, we are not talking secondary politics here: this is about as mainstream as it gets. An enormous amount of people now subscribe to these teachings and the recent Left Behind series of books, describing a ‘fictionalised’ (!) account of the Rapture, sold tens of millions.

 

Make no mistake, huge chunks of the US are just as nutty and as dangerous as any Muslim looking forward to those sweet, sweet virgins!

 

And remember, some of the most devout (I love how that word replaces ‘fundamentalist’ in polite company) followers have been the men sat in the White House, with their finger on a rather important button. Why would George W have listened to a polite request from Europe to calm his Middle East aggression, when he has tens of millions of voters (and more than a few lobbyists) urging him to carve up those lands for a far more important outcome?!

 

In fact, why would anyone do anything to improve the world … if it’s all about to end? With nutcases in charge in the West and in the East, this is more serious a problem than we give credit to.

Religion: The Abandonment of Art and Science

[This is the first of many articles related to religion and its features]

 

Have you ever noticed how many totalitarian regimes choose to kick off a ‘cultural revolution’ by burning books[1]. Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin … all gave their libraries a good clean out and we see the dismissal of truth as a common feature of many autocratic leaders.

 

“Where books are burned in the end people will burn.” Heinrich Heine

 

Religion brings everything to the lowest level in order to indoctrinate most effectively. Hitler stated:

 

“We stand at the end of the age of reason … a new era of the magical explanation of the world – an explanation based on will rather than knowledge.”[2]

 

It’s hard to believe it now, but Islam was once revered for its mathematics and science. The Economist (in the report noted above) notes how Islam, once famed for its skepticism, closed off its scientific, literary and mathematical doors to the world. Book translations stopped; minds closed!

 

“There is little Arab writing, or translation from other languages: in the 1,000 years since the Caliph Mamoun, the Arabs have translated as many books as Spain translates in a single year.”

 

Ziauddin Sardar has written over forty books on Islam and states in a 2003 article[3] that, “the problem with all varieties of Islam as it is practiced today is that it has lost its humanity … and has become a monster that devours all that is most humane and open-minded.” He questions how reason can ever be brought to a religious society, if there is no reason within the religion itself.

 

What possible civilised progress can be made, considering this intellectual ‘dis-Enlightenment’?

 

…

 

Remember, faith makes a virtue of not thinking. This is not be admired. Science and religion should not and CAN not converge. Science works on problems; religion claims to have the solutions.

 

“Theologians should make a choice! You can claim your own magisterium, separate from science, but … you must renounce miracles. Or you can keep your miracles and enjoy their huge recruiting potential among the uneducated. But then kiss goodbye to separate magisteria and your high-minded aspiration to converge with science.” Richard Dawkins

 

Astonishingly, when Ipsos Mori surveyed 10,000 adults across ten countries worldwide for the British Council’s Darwin Now project, they found that “nearly a quarter of Londoners and one in seven people nationwide believe in creationism”. How, in this country, at this time, is that still possible?!

 

Americans go ballistic about stem cell research! Let’s assess this logic: you don’t like this because it is hurting a cell?

Right!

Even there is no proof that this is in any way what we understand as ‘life’?

Yes!

OK, and if you care so much about people, what about all the millions who will die because of treatment that is dependent on stem cell research?

 

As celebrities such as Jenny McCarthy continue to harm children with her campaign of unreason against the MMR vaccine[4], we live in a world where tabloid endorsement is often given more credence than evidence-based judgments (especially if you can get Queen Oprah Winfrey behind you). Many religious people endorse ‘Eugenics’ (the ‘self direction of human evolution’: Hitler’s preferred form of artificial selection) and are therefore happy to see the weak suffer, such that we may achieve a stronger gene pool. Or, you might choose to adopt the Mother Teresa Approach; letting people suffer because their pain is ‘the kisses of Jesus’.

 

“Science was an antidote to the filth and fascism that polluted the sky.” Primo Levi (Author and concentration camp survivor)

 

---

[1] It is a shame that English uses the word ‘book’ as our Latin friends stick with the ‘li’ root; as in, libertas (liberty) and libra (scales … justice) comes from reading a livre, or libro, etc

[2] G Holton (1993), ‘Can science be about the end of modern culture?’ (Pub Understanding of science, p302)

[3] Read it here to learn plenty more about Islam

[4] Oprah’s favourite Playboy bunny can be stopped here and her body count is here. Oprah must take her share of the blame as well

Airports

There are very few more depressing establishments in the world, which is quite remarkable considering we are normally in a good mood when we get there.

 

There’s a few in Asia that are worth 20 minutes of your time and a cheeky shiatsu. In most of the major cities, however, they are:

 

1. Dark
2. Crowded
3. Uncomfortable
4. Sombre
5. Depressing

… you get the point!

 

Now, add that to the notoriously unhelpful airlines (Easyjet could slaughter your grandma in cold blood and you’d be lucky to get a free cappuccino) and it all adds up to a shocking use of a few hours of our lives.

 

Whichever airline you fly, a trip the airport essentially requires ‘devolving’ to a level somewhere pre-cattle domestication. We are shuffled from one holding pen to another while the plane is lightly cleared of litter after its 7th flight that day.

 

As yet, with alternative long-haul transport generally not good enough, the mental and environmental damage will continue. Carbon taxes won’t make it cheap anymore, but until high-speed rail is built throughout Europe, it remains the only viable option.

 

We want to see more of the world and we want to travel in some comfort – yet, when one is staring into a cold pasta-shaped rubber salad at 11pm, two hours outside of Gothenburg, it makes you wonder …

 

Whoever is reading, please make rail happen!

Sustainable Communities

If we don’t think carefully about living sustainably, we may well have some uncomfortable changes thrust upon us. I am in the process of studying how this might be possible and I firmly believe that our new communities will vastly improve upon the existing model.

 

Somehow, there is a way of combining the modern luxuries we have all come to adore, with a sense of community and belonging. Everyone says that they love local shops, street parties and friendly neighbours; yet the majority of us still abandon the grocer for Sainsburys, only ever drive through their High Road and haven’t spoken to Doris upstairs for seven months.

 

Remember, this isn’t just about the environment. It’s a better, more social, healthier way of living …

 

The basics:

 

(a)    Cleaner, greener homes. Lower bills, fresher air, a better quality of life.

 

(b)   Increased public transport, electric cars and cycling. Oh, and walk once in a while …

 

(c)    Decentralised power (if practical) to complement existing grid electricity.

 

(d)   Green, open space … for every reason!

 

(e)    Where feasible, jobs near our homes (see (f) below). Just how many people can we cram on to the overstretched commuter services?

 

(f)     Local people in local shops selling local produce! (If you didn’t know me better you’d think that was a campaign for the BNP.)

 

(g)    Local power with local people. Decentralisation of control, but to leaner, more strategic councils with proper regional planning guidance.

 

This is not utopic[1]: in fact, it’s pretty much it used to be until we swapped life for work; neighbours for Facebook friends; a lazy day chilling in the garden for a car ride to the local park!!

 

Malcolm Gladwell tells a lovely story[2] about Roseto, an Italian immigrant community in the US, with exceptionally high health rates. Diet, genetics, exercise and location could not explain it. It turned out to be the town itself.

 

“As Bruhn and Wolf walked around, they began to realize why. They looked at how the Rosetans visited each other, stopping to chat, or cooking for each other. They learned about the extended family clans; they saw how many homes had three generations living under one roof, and how much respect grandparents commanded. They counted twenty-two separate civic organizations in a town of just under 2000 people. They picked up on the particular egalitarian ethos of the town.”

 

None of that is rocket science: it’s sensible living that we all want to be a part of.

 

---

[1] I THINK that’s an acceptable modern word, but feel free to correct me

[2] In the book Outliers

The USA: A Waste of Potential

You know what; the US had it right for a long time!

They are the really bright kid at school who had his whole life ahead of him, then never quite realised his talent …

Oppression of native culture, slavery (replace ‘African’ with ‘wage’), religious fundamentalism … how did these sneak into a country promoting ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’? Perhaps they were back on the right track … until a hideous burst of colonial and commercial aggression in the last 50 years or so.

In order to seed and develop and beneficial commercial relationships, they have got into the rather unfriendly habits of:

 Corrupting most of the world’s major institutions (World Bank, IMF – I expand on this statement in Aid, Globalisation and Instruments of Foreign Policy)

 Kicking off numerous wars to oppress the locals and insert their puppet leaders

 As above, but for resources

 Providing aid solely to ensure legitimate rights to land, natural resources, etc

By the end of the 1990s, the US was “running out of demons … running out of villains” (Colin Powell). Like any good Orwellian society, America needs to inspire fear and, thus, unity (oh, and plenty of purchasing). Of course, if you haven’t got a ‘Russia’ any more, a little paranoia goes a long way. “We don’t know who the villains are, but we know they are there!” said George W Bush in 2000. Luckily for him, he found an enemy the following year!

Contrast this country with the vision of its Founding Fathers. They introduced the revolutionary idea that government could rest on the reasoned choice of the people themselves, which was thought absurd in other lands at that time. This modern government would be free of authoritarian domination. Thomas Jefferson stated “the reason of man may be trusted with the formation of his own opinions”.

What a start, but boy have they let themselves go …!

The Battle Between Medicine and Magic

There has always been a struggle between the analytics and logic of reason and the instinctive nature of humans to turn to magic and unreason. For me, it is a major concern that in 2009 it is still a very significant struggle for medicine to come out on top.

 

While the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans made immense (though, at times, thoroughly misguided) advances in science, we British managed to spend the ‘Dark Ages’ believing that divine displeasure or magic spells caused our ills,. Much of any success was presumably down to the placebo effect (as is the case today with homeopathy, herbal remedies, etc … and the effect can not be underestimated).

 

Remember, there is no such thing as ‘alternative medicine’1: only medicine. Like anything in life: if it works, prove it!

 

You may think; who cares?! If people want to spend their money on Echinacea, and it seems to helps them, let them!

 

I agree to some extent as I am a civil libertarian, but the effects of ‘bad science’ can be seen throughout the world. President Mbeki of South Africa rejected evidence that AIDS is an STD caused by a virus. The campaign to promote awareness and anti-HIV drugs was denounced as “an attempt to commit genocide against black people”.

 

On a less serious note, alternative medicine substitutes anecdotal evidence for serious, professional clinical trials and that sets a dangerous precedent.

 

I shall leave Robert Park (author of Voodoo Science) to sum it up with his seven worrying signs of ‘bad science’ (comments after are a mix of his and mine):

 

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media

The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists. Classic examples are the claims made in 1989 regarding cold fusion and the scare raised on British TV that GM potatoes could be a cause of cancer.

 

2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work

Often, the discoverer describes mainstream science as part of a larger conspiracy that includes industry and government. The anti-MMR campaigners have tried this, including the moronic Jenny McCarthy, who has indirectly harmed children because of her campaign of unreason. Sadly, we live in a world where celebrity endorsement is often given more credence than evidence-based judgments.

 

3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection

Alas, there is never a clear photograph of a flying saucer, or the Loch Ness monster. Homeopathy, or water, as I call it, is one example.

 

4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal

If modern science has learned anything in the past century, it is to distrust anecdotal evidence. Because anecdotes have a very strong emotional impact, they serve to keep superstitious beliefs alive in an age of science. The most important discovery of modern medicine is not vaccines or antibiotics, but the randomized double-blind test, by means of which we know what works and what doesn’t. Contrary to the saying, ‘data’ is not the plural of ‘anecdote’.

 

5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries

Much of what is termed ‘alternative medicine’ is part of that myth. Blood-letting was practiced for thousands of years …

 

6. The discoverer has worked in isolation

Scientific breakthroughs nowadays are almost always syntheses of the work of many scientists.

 

7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation

If we must change existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an observation, it is almost certainly wrong.

 

 

 

Further reading:

Dawkins, Devils Chaplain

Park, Voodoo Science

Taverne, March of Unreason

New Scientist

British Medical Journal

Nature, a journal

Science, a journal

 

---

1 “Alternative medicine is that set of practices which can not be tested, refuse to be tested, or consistently fail tests.” Richard Dawkins, A Devil’s Chaplain (2003)

Sustainable Energy (1000 words that will tell you everything you need to know)

I dare say that many of you are like me: aware of the fact that climate change is a major global threat, but nonetheless confused by the information overload.

 

Some of what we read is reasoned and logical; but much else is deliberately out to scare, obfuscate or misinform us. If someone is trying to sell you something, you have to be doubly careful[1]!

 

When it relates to the environment, we are constantly fed horror-stories, warnings and suggested actions. These often accompany technical words and phrases like ‘CO²’, ‘kWh’ and ‘% reduction’, which are linked to insane comparisons, such as “the waste alone would fill 200 Wembley Stadiums”!!

 

As an introduction to this field I have previously urged you to read the likes of Heat, The Hot Topic and The Revenge of Gaia. The one single book, however, that quite superbly lays out the key energy-related questions and answers is Dave Mackay’s Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air (SEWTHA)[2].

 

His work ignores emotion and hyperbole (a fitting strap-line for The Sun!?) and concentrates on factual comparison and relevance.

 

I am going to highlight some of the key issues that have interested or puzzled me, though naturally I urge you to read the material yourself. The diagrams are fun and colourful, though small to save space; likewise my explanations if I think you are intelligent enough to get the point!

 

 

Some Basics (really quickly):

 

Life needs energy; energy has been predominantly produced through fossil fuels (carbon-based); using these causes CO² emissions to rise; CO² is a greenhouse gas that traps heat.

 

Alongside the environmental factors, we also have major concerns about the shortage and security of supply of fossil fuels.

 

SEWTHA makes it easy by just using kWh to express energy and kWh/day to express power. A 40W bulb, on permanently, uses one kWh/d. Power is the rate at which something uses energy.

 

 

“If you drive a 4×4, you are damaging the environment, increasing our dependence on foreign oil… and you look like a twat!” Marcus Brigstocke

 

 

Some Primary Questions

 

Is the Earth heating up?

Yes

 

Are humans causing this?

Scientists mostly agree that they are. This is as close to consensus as anything can ever be.

 

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c1/page_9.shtml

 

What is the principle cause?

See the table below. It’s the Energy Economy, stupid! The other factors are still HUGE, but energy trumps them all.

 

 http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c1/page_15.shtml

  

What do we each emit?

The world average is 5.5 tonnes of CO² and equivalent greenhouse gases (5.5t CO²e – hoo yeh!!). The US, Australia and Canada are up in the 20s; the UK is over 10.

 

 http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c1/page_14.shtml

 

What do we need to get to?

That’s currently a big debate (and will dominate the Copenhagen Talks this December), but the answer is sadly ‘lower than we think, or would be comfortable with’. We might need to be at 1t CO²e/person by 2050!

 

If energy is the big deal, how much of it do we consume?

Average UK and European power consumption: 125kWh/person/day (see below)

 

 http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c18/page_105.shtml

 

What will happen?

No-one knows for sure, but most probably a combination of ice caps melting, severe weather systems, ocean flow effects, flora and fauna extinction and much, much more. In short, it’s bad … and we can’t predict it!

 

How bad is China?

China is now emitting at about the same level as the US, but obviously has far lower emissions per capita. Further, much of their production (causing the emissions) is for rich countries. But yes, they are bad and are only going to get worse.

 

Why bother doing anything?

I won’t spend the time on morality here, so please read The Environment: Our State of Play, which I will publish shortly.

 

 

Some Cool Facts

 

Whilst I have made extensive notes on the whole book[3], I shall not bore you silly here.

 

Before the final answers are revealed though, I am including just a few of the best illustrations in the book. Don’t worry, there’s nothing technical here:

 

Gadgets: Just look at an un-used printer or computer box!

 

Gadget	Power consumption (W)
	on and active	on but inactive	standby	off
Computer and peripherals:
computer box	80	55		2
cathode-ray display	110		3	0
LCD display	34		2	1
projector	150		5
laser printer	500	17
wireless & cable-modem	9
Laptop computer	16	9		0.5
Portable CD player	2
Bedside clock-radio	1.1	1
Bedside clock-radio	1.9	1.4
Digital radio	9.1		3
Radio cassette-player	3	1.2		1.2
Stereo amplifier	6			6
Stereo amplifier II	13			0
Home cinema sound	7	7	4
DVD player	7	6
DVD player II	12	10	5
TV	100		10
Video recorder	13		1
Digital TV set top box	6		5
Clock on microwave oven	2
Xbox	160		2.4
Sony Playstation 3	190		2
Nintendo Wii	18		2
Answering machine		2
Answering machine II		3
Cordless telephone		1.7
Mobile phone charger	5	0.5
Vacuum cleaner	1600

 

 

Stuff: What do we buy, where does it come from, what does it cost? 

 http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/cH/page_323.shtml

 

 
The Conclusions

 

This is where we are now and where we might be able to get to … all in pretty pictures for you. To find out how he discovered all of this, you’ll have to read it, as I’m getting tired!

 http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c27/page_204.shtml

 

 

After much discussion and analysis (which you have conveniently missed), Mackay comes up with his Five Energy Plans for the UK. We only need to pick one of them!

 

  http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c27/page_212.shtml

 

Here is how the UK might end up looking (and this isn’t even the renewables-heavy plan!):

 

 http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c27/page_215.shtml

  

And here is an astonishingly succinct breakdown of the available low carbon technologies (OK, now we are getting geeky!):

 

Capacity	Rough cost total	per person	Average power delivered
52 onshore wind farms: 5200 km2	35 GW	£27bn	£450	4.2 kWh/d/p
		–based on Lewis wind farm
29 offshore wind farms: 2900 km2	29 GW	£36bn	£650	3.5 kWh/d/p
		– based on Kentish Flats, & including £3bn investment in jack-up barges.
Pumped storage:    15 facilities similar to Dinorwig	30 GW	£15bn	£250
Photovoltaic farms: 1000 km2	48 GW	£190bn	£3200	2 kWh/d/p
		– based on Solarpark in Bavaria
Solar hot water panels:    1 m2 of roof-mounted panel    per person. (60 km2 total)	2.5 GW(th) average	£72bn	£1200	1 kWh/d/p
Waste incinerators:    100 new 30 MW incinerators	3 GW	£8.5bn	£140	1.1 kWh/d/p
		– based on SELCHP
Heat pumps	210 GW(th)	£60bn	£1000	12 kWh/d/p
Wave farms – 2500 Pelamis,    130 km of sea	1.9 GW (0.76 GW average)	£6bn?	£100	0.3 kWh/d/p
Severn barrage: 550 km2	8 GW (2 GW average)	£15bn	£250	0.8 kWh/d/p
Tidal lagoons: 800 km2	1.75 GW average	£2.6bn?	£45	0.7 kWh/d/p
Tidal stream:    15 000 turbines – 2000 km2	18 GW (5.5 GW average)	£21bn?	£350	2.2 kWh/d/p
Nuclear power: 40 stations	45 GW	£60bn	£1000	16 kWh/d/p
		– based on Olkiluoto, Finland
Clean coal	8 GW	£16bn	£270	3 kWh/d/p
Concentrating solar power    in deserts: 2700 km2	40 GW average	£340bn	£5700	16 kWh/d/p
		– based on Solúcar
Land in Europe for 1600 km of    HVDC power lines: 1200 km2	50 GW	£1bn	£15
		– assuming land costs £7500 per ha
2000 km of HVDC power lines	50 GW	£1bn	£15
		– based on German Aerospace Center estimates
Biofuels: 30 000 km2		(cost not estimated)		2 kWh/d/p
Wood/Miscanthus: 31 000 km2		(cost not estimated)		5 kWh/d/p

 

 

The Summary Conclusion

 

The UK is 90% reliant on fossil fuels and therefore we will need big – no, immense – changes. That means alterations to transport, more efficient heating, increasing green energy production, etc.

 

Small actions will not make the difference we need!

 

Carbon pollution must be priced correctly and early stage green businesses must be incentivised and supported.

 

The book addresses:

Þ    Nuclear: this should be seriously considered; a statement which other environmentalists now agree with

Þ    Renewables: everyone loves them, but there is no numerical/financial evidence that they will produce enough power to meet our growing demand. We also can’t have all of them as they’ll get in each other’s way; not to mention the shocking planning constraints in this country

Þ    Sahara Desert Solar and other foreign renewables: not ideal, but don’t dismiss it

Þ    ‘Carbon Capture & Storage’: great potential; let’s see the proof

Þ    Electric transport: will have a huge part to play (and car batteries may even be a way of storing power)

 

People, governments, local authorities, businesses … MUST start saying YES!

 

 

---

[1] Where do you think Marks and Spencer’s Loch Muir salmon comes from? The answer is: anywhere; all over the place. It certainly isn’t Loch Muir, as no such loch exists. Name sounds good though …

[2] Dave Mackay has been kind enough to write this book for all of us, and not for money. As such, the material is free to use and can be read completely online (UIT Cambridge, 2008). By the way, he has now been recruited by Ed Miliband, Energy and Climate Change secretary, apparently to work on the government’s Low Carbon Transition Plan.

[3] … and thus have finally learnt my own power consumption. I’m very good by UK standards, but shocking compared to most of the world.

Biomimicry: Learning from Nature

Nature runs on sunlight, recycles everything, demands local expertise … shouldn’t we be taking the hint.

 

We are a long way short of living truly sustainably, but have millions of species with a far better track record to help us.

 

“After 3.8 billion years of research and development, failures are fossils, and what surrounds us is the secret to survival.” Biomimicry Institute1

 

If we learn correctly and respectfully, we will be:

 

Þ    Utilising solar energy like a leaf

Þ    Capturing moisture like a Namibian beetle

Þ    Computing like a human cell

Þ    Self-cleaning like a flower petal

Þ    Resisting water like an otter

Þ    Saving energy (in buildings) like a termite mound

 

I urge you to read and listen to Michael Pawlyn2, sustainable architect. He puts into context the fantastic potential of ‘biomimicking’ architecture: saving costs, increasing stocks and flows … all by using ‘Nature as a Measure, Model and Mentor’. Some of the examples and designs are magnificent.3

 

Many, if not all, of the solutions we will need in the sustainability revolution already exist in the remarkable adaptations that natural organisms have made to surviving in resource-constrained environments. Humans are an incredibly inventive species, but in many ways the carbon age has been a huge diversion from ingenuity because it has been so easy to burn fossil fuels to meet many of our needs. We need to reawaken that ingenuity and rethink the way we do things, using nature as our primary source of inspiration.

 

“The more our world functions like the natural world, the more likely we are to endure on this home that is ours, but not ours alone.” Janine Benyus4

---

1 Take a look at the site and their amazing work

2 Here is a YouTube link

3 Listen to the BBC report or read The Telegraph

4 She wrote Biomimicry; Innovation Inspired By Nature (1997). Learn more about her and the other pioneers

Can YOU Make Change Happen?

One of my all time favourite quotes is from Margaret Mead1

 

“Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has.”

 

If you think back to any great change; any revolution or simply an alteration in mass opinion/action, it always comes down to a few people who resisted the status quo and proposed something different. Often ridiculed, often killed (we humans aren’t fond of change are we!), but truly the only entity that has ever achieved anything!

 

History shows that what may at first appear to be marginal protests are often those that bring about the most significant change. The sitting government may hate remonstration, and it inevitably annoys a citizen reluctant to change (generally about 98%!), but it is the only way results are ever achieved.

 

“So much attention is paid to the aggressive sins, such as violence and cruelty and greed with all their tragic effects, that too little attention is paid to the passive sins, such as apathy and laziness, which in the long run can have a more devastating effect.”  Eleanor Roosevelt

 

In the UK especially we have a number of extremely capable people that catch the ‘middle class ennui’ bug. And yes, I’ve been there! Plenty care about human rights, climate change or foreign aid, so here’s a call to action. Get stuck in!!

 

---

1 Incidentally, some of her work is fascinating, such as the study of Samoan women’s seamless transition from childhood to adulthood (as opposed to the more usual Western adolescent nightmare!!) – view some video clips here

Aid, Globalisation and our Instruments of Foreign Policy

Oooh, heavy title, but bear with it; it gets good … promise!!

 

The world’s poorest countries are currently being hit hard by (a) the world recession; (b) decreasing aid; and (c) decreasing Foreign Direct Investment and capital inflow (FDI). We know that the Western model has failed us (Gordon Brown announced the death of the ‘Washington Consensus’[1] at this years G20 summit) but nonetheless continue to pour money into the IMF.

 

The UN’s trade and development arm (UNCTAD) suggested some practical ideas:

Þ     Government guarantees for long-term loans to fledgling businesses (to boost domestic industry)

Þ     Part-nationalised development banks

Þ     Managed exchange rates

Þ     Central banks ignoring short-term inflation

 

I am not qualified enough to comment on the individual economic cases, but would also draw your attention to my article on The Future of Capitalism.

 

Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General, has threatened wealthy nations that continuously fail to honour their long-standing commitments (and that’s pretty much all of them!). He reinforced the view that £300bn needs to go to poor nations immediately for poverty reduction and technology transfer.

 

Countries are not, however, giving their measly 0.7% as pledged, which is particularly dangerous right now as we all know that decreasing poverty is the key to national security.

 

But don’t we have large, international institutions to do this, like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)?

 

Yes, but a serious look at the history of the World Bank and IMF will tell you that were set up as tools of US (and to a lesser extent) European imperialism! A few facts about the World Bank:

 

Þ     Rich countries have more votes2

Þ     All Presidents have been Americans3 (IMF Presidents are all Europeans)

Þ     The US has a veto

Þ     There is no formal voting

Þ     There are no meeting transcripts

Þ     They invest only in major projects (with rather juicy private sector contracts) and not basic care (which is desperately needed)

 

In summary, it’s not far off a scam concocted in a dodgy Third World dictatorship. The Fund and the Bank are based in Washington and have ensured the dollar’s global hegemony to this day. Importantly, the rich countries lend only if they will gain commercially somewhere down the line.

 

Didn’t they wipe off plenty of recent debt?

 

They did indeed. Some caveats though:

 

Þ     Much of this debt was lent to corrupt dictators and should never have been pursued in the first place

Þ     However you spin it, in terms of looted resources, slave labour, climate change effects and so on, the rich owe the poor far more than the poor owe the rich

 

The Bank has bankrolled Mobutu and Suharto, deforested Nepal, flooded Laos, trashed the Amazon and promoted genocide in Indonesia.

 

Even considering that, it’s still not that simple! To qualify for debt relief, developing countries must “tackle corruption, boost private sector development” and eliminate “impediments to private investment, both domestic and foreign.”4

 

These ‘conditionalities’ seem sensible and I am certainly in favour of debt being properly accounted for. Upon investigation, though, we see that the only true determinant of whether debt is granted or written off is whether the country is willing to do business with the lender. These countries are thus forced into privatising state-owned assets and opening up to western investment far sooner than they would wish for. The US is sensational at this: protecting itself while deploring others for their lack of commitment to ‘free’ trade. If we in the West can’t grab their public services and resources at rock bottom prices, what are we doing there?!

 

As such, these entities actually accelerate the spread of poverty.

 

Take a look at this critique from BBC’s Newsnight, which includes an interview with a man that should know what he’s talking about, Joseph Stiglitz (ex-Chief Economist of the World Bank5). He reinforces everything stated in this article and also has swipe at that veritable bone of contention, the World Trade Organisation (WTO). He likens their trade practices to the British Empire in the opium wars, forcing China at gunpoint to open its markets.

 

As George Monbiot said,

 

“Attaching conditions like these to aid amounts to saying “we will give you a trickle of money if you give us the Crown Jewels.” Attaching them to debt relief is in a different moral league: “we will stop punching you in the face if you give us the Crown Jewels.” The G8’s plan for saving Africa is little better than extortion racket.”

 

Monbiot followed up these 2005 comments above by mocking the arrival of the 2005-2007 President, Paul Wolfowitz. How right he proved to be …

 

“One would think that steps to ensure whistle-blower protections would have followed in the wake of the Bank’s biggest black mark in history — the resignation of president Paul Wolfowitz, forced by anonymous staffers who exposed his cronyism, favoritism, incompetence and improper political dealings. He … received coordinated support from the Bank’s general counsel, the Department of Institutional Integrity, human resources, and the Ethics Committee of the Board of Directors.” 6

 

Are they at least held accountable?

 

Not really! The IMF and World Bank exist without any significant external oversight and are virtually impenetrable by the legislatures of their member governments. Labyrinthine bureaucracies, coupled with immunities from national and international laws, have become, in effect, impunity.

 

And it continues! The G20 countries agreed in April that nearly $1 trillion will be given to the IMF and the Multilateral Development Banks. So, just as the whole world is crying out for bank transparency, that $1 trillion is off to the most secretive establishment on the planet.

 

Learn more from perhaps the most thorough review: Catherine Caufield’s Masters of Illusion: the World Bank and the Poverty of Nations; and George Soros’ On Globalisation is also highly critical of the institutions.

                                                                                             

As all charity donors know, the only money that ever truly helps it that delivered by the people, for the people … on the ground, ‘bottom-up’. ‘Top-down’ funds have only ever led to corruption and mismanagement and the IMF and World Bank have specialised in supporting and, most shamefully, benefiting from that fact.

---

[1] Explained here

2 The ‘one-dollar, one-vote’ farce is outlined here

3 Here you are

4 Read it on the National Archives site here

5 Background on JS

6 Stated by Bea Edwards, International Reform Director of the Government Accountability Project, the US’ leading whistle-blower protection organization, www.whistleblower.org

A State of Loneliness

It’s a strange one! We have increased the performance and efficiency of many services over time, but we haven’t significantly improved how people live. Services manage and process entities (people), but only rarely allow the end-user to change their own lives. As such, the most intractable problems remain!

 

I envisage redesigned public services that enable mutual self-help. Strong, supportive, local relationships that are by, definition, self-sustaining. We have heard ‘teach a man to fish …’ said repeatedly with regards to the developing world, but it’s about time we took a look at ourselves.

 

Frustratingly, the architect of our welfare state, William Beveridge, predicted this later in his life. He understood that, as public sector institutions would grow larger, they would lose personal interaction. Just as I discuss redefining one super-structure in The Future of Capitalism, the welfare state is also up for inquiry.

 

For those that will no doubt cynically dismiss any new idea as ‘living in a free money dream-world’, please note that I am proposing doing more with less. Increased efficiency and rationalisation … to use the ubiquitous government-speak.

 

Supportive and loving relationships are at the heart of humanity. We are interdependent animals that crave autonomy, security and sustenance; but also connectivity, love and attention. Solitary confinement is, for most, the greatest fear of all.

 

“Human beings are social creatures. We are social not just in the trivial sense that we like company, and not just in the obvious sense that we each depend on others. We are social in a more elemental way: simply to exist as a normal human being requires interaction with other people.” (Atul Gawande, The New Yorker, 2/3/09)

 

Modern life has forgotten much of this. The irony is evident: in an innovation-driven, service-economy, basic social and collaborative skills should be as valued and as evident as logic or arithmetic, to name but two. Yet it is the very technologies that we have innovated; the very communities that we have built; the very society that we have structured … that is driving us apart. Life is increasingly organised through fleeting, impersonal transactions. As we text, we forget to call; as we Facebook, we forget to meet; as we blog, we forget to actually get up and do something about it! 1

 

Progress marches on, and I shall not stand in its way here; but in public services we do have an option. Can we scale them, without being heavy-handed? Can we provide, not a choice of sales-points, but just one … that works! Lastly, can we use our greatest resource – other human beings – to solve problems?

 

….

 

I am particularly concerned by the plight of the elderly. Statistically, it is clear that their numbers will only increase. Humans age well if they have a remaining network of family and friends. By definition, this will dissipate, but the support doesn’t have to.

 

Elderly people want to stay active (health-depending) and they want to contribute. Day care centers and their ilk are well-meaning and not to be dismissed, but they do not solve the problem; merely give it a cozy chair for a few hours. In the same vein, many services will always remain impersonal (bin collection) and technical (social care) … but there’s a segment we have been missing!

 

I shall break a habit and issue a small plug, to the Get Together programme, designed by Participle2.

 

Here are their stats regarding loneliness and social isolation that reinforce the statements above:

 

“In the UK over 2.9 million (30%) older people do not see friends at least once a week and over 1 million (11%) experience contact less than once a month.

 

Impacts range from individual misery (increases in memory loss and self-neglect, decreases in self-esteem and quality of life, and depression); to a strain on public resources (costs of slower recovery from illness and injury, increased likelihood of mental and physical health problems).

 

Dementia alone costs the UK £17 billion every year.”

 

There are various elements within the framework, but the one that seriously caught my attention was the ‘conference call’ concept. Groups will be organised by Get-Together around particular topics, such as music, film, or current affairs, depending on member interests. As most elderly people are able to use a phone (though perhaps not a chat-room, on or offline3) they will be able to call in at a specific time to join a discussion-topic.

 

“For most of the last decade we have seen public services as systems and standards, to be managed and rationalised. Instead, we should re-imagine public services as feeding the relationships that sustain us in everyday life.” (Charles Leadbeater, founding partner of Participle)

 

Helping people help themselves!

 

“The life span of any civilisation can be measured by the respect and care that is given to its elderly citizens, and those societies which treat the elderly with contempt have the seeds of their own destruction within them.” Arnold Toynbee, British Historian

 

 

---

1 Oh, and as we Twitter we forget that no-one gives a sh*t what you had for breakfast!

2 The organisation works with communities to devise solutions to intractable social challenges

3 Funny how we don’t even consider that a chat room might have chairs and tables any more …

Location, Lobcession, Obsession

Why are we so obsessed with property in this country? There is nowhere quite comparable to us. Is it because we are an island and therefore have a fixed amount of land; is it the ‘Englishman’s Home is his Castle’ mentality; or something else entirely that I am missing?

 

Sure enough, after the horrendous shock of 2008, slowly (very slowly) it is beginning again! Demand is sneaking up; the banks will soon start lending; meanwhile, not nearly enough new homes are being built … and we’re off into unsustainable price territory once more. In fact, we’re rather prone to demolish old housing to support local house values; which is absolutely fine as long as you never need a nurse, teacher or policeman. Local Authorities and Housing Associations need to be given finance to build and meet demand, especially for ‘key workers’, but … we only know ‘boom and bust’, so there’s no point in even pretending we want to try something different.

 

Would we not rather have safer and more pleasant neighbourhoods (the sustainable communities discussed in my soon-to-be-published, imaginatively titled, Sustainable Communities), rather than the government spending its money encouraging people to take on burdening debt?! The Bank of England, formed with the primary mandate of controlling inflation, soon became a property-market facilitator.

 

Are we now so material that our very home is just a place of investment? This really saddens me and I believe it is hard to structure a functioning society in which people are so fixated by end-value, rather than ‘now-value’. I want my home to be where my babies are born, where my kids grow up, where I can walk in the garden when I’m old and remember all the joy and laughter … or I could just sell in three years and make a quick buck!!

 

Our obsession is fast becoming paranoia! I have been told by a friend on numerous occasions:

 

“Always buy the worst house in a good street, rather than the best house in a bad street: it’ll hold its value better.”

 

I’m an economist and that makes economic sense … up to a point. It is utter drivel socially or emotionally, but when did that matter?! By this estimation, my friend is happy living in an inferior home (you know; less space, higher utility bills, the poor man compared to your more affluent neighbours … more discomfort essentially), rather than a superior home … because in five years’ time he might make an extra £20,000 on the resale.

 

What is that five-year discomfort worth (considering he earns £80,000 per annum anyway)?

 

It’s hard to think like that. We are conditioned to contemplate only simple financial transactions (I am more happy because I earn more money, or live in a house worth £X) and measuring social and emotional wealth is difficult (an issue I deal with in The Future of Capitalism – coming soon to a blog near you). After all, we are the MTV generation: our purpose in life is to buy stuff, play with it … then buy more stuff.

 

“While many first time buyers cannot afford to buy homes in the UK they are still trying to push themselves to the limit to capture that dream home. It is this type of action and mentality which has seen the UK economy heading south as the property market takes the lead. Something needs to be done to reduce the influence of the property market, however, quite what can be done remains to be seen!”1

 

As for people who go on and on about negative equity … shut the fcuk up! There are people dying of AIDS before they are five, or watching their family being slaughtered by a US-financed tribe! If you can’t sell your house for the value you purchased it … LIVE IN IT! Is that so alien a concept? Shut up, stop watching property programmes and just LIVE IN YOUR HOUSE.

 

Sorry, got a bit carried away there, but you get my point!

 

Buy a home you want to live in (just one is enough) and enjoy it. If you sell and make money; fantastic. If you don’t – just like pretty much any other asset – it will be worth it for the joy in those four walls.

 

---

1 From financialadvice.co.uk – a very useful site

Willy Mason’s Oxygen: Poetic Inspiration

Music doesn’t have to be about protest (I guess there’s always a place for Boyzone) but it is often most powerful when it is. Where is our generation’s Dylan, Guthrie or Difranco?

 

Oh well, Willy Mason is a fine addition: not motivated by anger at what the world is, but hope as to what it might one day be!

 

I shouldn’t really send out You Tube clips, but there are plenty of superb live sing-alongs! Here’s MySpace, Wikipedia and his official site.

 

Listen to it there and check out a summarised version below: the second verse is lyrical magnificence!

 

I wanna be, better than oxygen

So you can breathe, when you’re drowning and weak in the knees

I wanna speak louder than Ritalin

For all the children who think that they’ve got a disease

I wanna be cooler than t.v.

For all the kids that are wondering what they are going to be

We can be stronger than bombs

If you’re singing along and you know that you really believe

We can be richer than industry

As long as we know that there’s things that we don’t really need

We can speak louder than ignorance

Cause we speak in silence every time our eyes meet.

 

CHORUS: On and on, and on, and on it goes

The world it just keeps spinning

Until i’m dizzy, time to breathe

So close my eyes and start again anew.

 

I wanna see through all the lies of society

To the reality, happiness is at stake

I wanna hold up my head with dignity

Proud of a life where to give means more than to take

I want to live beyond the modern mentality

Where paper is all that you’re really taught to create

Do you remember the forgotten America?

Justice, equality, freedom to every race?

Just need to get past all the lies and hypocrisy

Make up and hair to the truth behind every face

Then look around to all the people you see,

How many of them are happy and free?

I know it sounds like a dream

But it’s the only thing that can get me to sleep at night

I know it’s hard to believe

But it’s easy to see that something here isn’t right

I know the future looks dark

But it’s there that the kids of today must carry the light.

 

CHORUS

What does ‘Organic Chocolate’ Actually Mean?

 As you all know by now, I am an environmentalist and a huge fan of good, healthy food … so I should love organic produce … right?

 

The truth is, I haven’t read much yet that really convinces me. Eating responsibly-sourced food (e.g. free range, fished from legal stocks, etc) is a MUST, but isn’t that enough?!

 

Apparently (picking bits from around the web), organic food:

 

Þ    Is produced by farmers who emphasise the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations

Þ    Consists of meat, poultry, eggs and dairy products that come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones

Þ    Is obtained from animals that are usually free range and fed a natural diet

Þ    Uses no (or limited) artificial fertilisers or pesticides

Þ    Emphasises crop rotation

Þ    Is higher in nutrient content than conventional foods

 

As far as I know (and please correct me if I am wrong), no-one has yet proved the benefits to any of (a) health; (b) the environment; or (c) taste. Any on of the three and I’m listening!

 

Regarding (a) above, John Krebs (ex-Chair of the Food Standards Agency) stated in the journal Nature that “growth hormones and pesticides in nature are not responsible for any deaths[1]”.

 

Further, there is growing discussion about the ‘Hormesis Effect[2]’: a generally-favorable biological response to a low exposure to toxins or other stressors. As such, fluoride, which is very poisonous, is used in toothpaste to strengthen teeth and, contrary to various anti-fluoridation political groups[3], has never caused proven damage. I think my mum would call this effect: “a little bit of dirt never did anyone any harm!”

                                                                                                          

Regarding (b), organic should mean less chemicals and more biodiversity, which is positive. On the downside, much of our organic food has to be transported from overseas, which is terrible for the environment. If more land is needed for less food (Professor AJ Trewavas tells us that “organic food decreases yields”[4]), that can’t be helpful either.

 

Naturally, much of the developing world has no choice but to be organic. We do, though there clearly has to be a more conspicuous display of proof that ‘inorganic = bad for us’. Supermarkets brand organic well, hike up the price and make more money … but is this ethical without the proof? (Did I just use ‘supermarkets’ and ‘ethical’ in the same sentence?!)

 

Everyone agrees on free range, responsible sourcing and IFM (Integrated Farm Management: exacting standards of landscape, animal welfare, etc).

 

“In our view the current scientific evidence does not show that organic food is any safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced food.” The Food Standards Agency

 

The BBC references the FSA’s opinion and elucidates their thoughts in more detail here.

 

My running theme in these articles is to respect truth, reason and science … even if there are sometimes unintended consequences. As such, my personal choice, in an absolutely ideal world, is:

 

Þ    free range

Þ    sustainably/responsibly sourced

Þ    minimally packaged

Þ    locally grown/produced

Þ    … and then perhaps organic

 

As always, the final decision is yours!!

---

[1] Pretty old now, but I can’t find a contradiction anywhere

[2] Actually quite interesting. Read more here (and no, never FULLY trust Wikipedia): essentially, this is how exercise works, no?!

[3] You didn’t believe me, did you?! Take a look at this report

[4] Though in quite a bit more detail: Anthony Trewavas (March 2001), “Urban myths of organic farming”, Nature 410: 409-410. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6827/full/410409a0.html.

Mother Teresa: The Other Side

A caring human being, blessed with some remarkable qualities. We’ll agree that much; but far, far from a Saint and I find it laughable that her name is now used as a byword for human nobility and compassion.

 

Due to her religious views, she:

 

Þ    Opposed birth control of any sort

Þ    Campaigned against abortion (in her Nobel acceptance speech, she described it as “the greatest destroyer of peace today1”)

Þ    Built convents rather than using much-needed funds for the poor

Þ    Refused to give patients painkillers, because their ‘suffering was the kisses of Jesus’ and brought them ‘closer to God’2

Þ    Ran an international organisation based on female slave labour and the ‘virtues’ of chastity, obedience to the Church, etc

Þ    Had horrendous views on women; stating that their duty was to their Church and their husband

Þ    Hung out with and supported some quite abominable people (for instance, her Legion d’Honneur from Haiti’s Jean-Claude ‘Baby Doc’ Duvalier)

 

The most significant challenge to the reputation of Mother Teresa is presented by Christopher Hitchens in his 1995 book The Missionary Position. “Only the absence of scrutiny has allowed her to pass unchallenged as a force for pure goodness, and it is high time that this suspension of our critical faculties was itself suspended.”

 

She was a ministering angel; worshiping poverty and there to save souls at the very last. As such, she was immoral, cruel and hypocritical.

 

I am picking on her, absolutely, but simply to exhibit what religion makes people do … and the taboo that prevails about criticising it. There are far worse than her and naturally I have not gone into depth regarding her no doubt tireless work for the poor. I just think it is important that we know all the truth about someone!

 

The question I always ask: why can’t we be as kind and as decent as Mother Teresa, without the need for unproven religious hysteria??

 

---

1 Many of her quotes are here: don’t say I don’t give you every viewpoint!!

2 Of course, at her end, she visited the very best heart specialists in the US … well, naturally

Guantanamo and what it means to me

Every time I think of G-Bay or Abu Ghraib I feel physically sick. Not simply because of the US electing to torture quite so many people (whether innocent or guilty of whatever they dreamed up that day) but of our reluctance to ever learn anything from history. We thus remain a poor man’s Orwellian paraphrase: using fear to justify totalitarian action.

 

We have proved that torture doesn’t work (the recipient will tell you exactly what they think you want to hear) and we also know that as humans in the 21st Century we really should have moved on.

 

The painfully overused ‘complex balancing act between protecting human rights and preventing terrorism’ is a false dichotomy. Where is the proof (we require and deserve) that their methods have worked?

 

As Aharon Barak, former president of the Israeli Supreme Court, so beautifully put it:

 

“Although a democracy must often fight with one hand tied behind its back, it nonetheless has the upper hand.”

 

I would strongly urge you to watch Taxi to the Dark Side1 and read any of the US or UK accounts of prisoner mistreatment.  And then ask yourself: did you vote for a leader that condoned this behaviour?

 

It’s worth a look at the Spanish inquisition for a worthwhile comparison. It sometimes shocks us to think of how brutal our primitive or mediaeval ancestors were: in fact, waterboarding, the favoured practice of US officers, stems from our Iberian friends. Let’s be clear on that: we have men and women in charge of the most powerful countries in the world that are no different to some of the most psychotic, barbaric and monstrous villains in the history of our planet.

 

Habius Corpus, the very foundation of justice, out of the window. Dignity, humanity and everything else we stand for goes with it.

 

---

1 Details here

Food Central: Gastronomic Paradise in San Sebastian

 Food is another great passion of mine (squeezed in neatly between serial killers and liberal economic theory). I love the attitude of the Mediterranean countries especially, who make gastronomy an integral part of their lives, rather than just fulfilling a basic human need.

 

I don’t like celebrity chefs and have never watched a cooking programme; I just love eating the stuff and being around people who appreciate it.[1]

 

Here’s a typical Italian or Spanish Food Pyramid to give you an idea (you have to love the fact they have olive oil as its own section!):

 

If you are of a similar disposition, I highly recommend a visit to the ‘culinary capital of the world’, San Sebastian (Donostia in its local tongue) in the Basque[2] region of Northern Spain.

 

A wealthy resort, combining a stunning beach, verdant hills and beautiful architecture (in addition to, as you might expect, the highest property values in Spain). San Sebastian is one of my favourite small cities (yes, there’s a list!) and has the highest per capita amount of Michelin stars in the world (180,000 people, 18 stars[3]).

 

Hit the Parte Vieja (Old Town) and begin the txikiteo (the Basque version of roaming bar to bar, combining alcohol (did I mention, this is Rioja country?!) with tiny portions of Bonsai cuisine). This is a French Quarter for foodies: a densely packed grid of narrow, pedestrianised streets full of dozens of the finest eateries in the world. Any place will serve you sensational pintxos (essentially, a gastronome’s tapas) and, if you have the € left, head out to the serious establishments. We took out a small bank loan to pay for lunch at Arzak, but it didn’t disappoint.

 

If you have the time, take a train through France. If you have to fly, it’s via Bilbao, so stop off for a fiesta and a visit to the incomparable Guggenheim. Thankfully, the cheap airlines don’t fly there, so it hasn’t been swamped with stags just yet!

 

Go, but don’t tell anyone else about it!!

 

Buen Provecho

 

---

[1] Having said all that, I did enjoy this book by Anthony Bourdain

 

[2] I discuss the Basque region in more detail elsewhere

 

[3] Geeks will like to know that Tokyo tops the list with 200+ stars (but 160,000 restaurants); according to this, London has 59; here are all the 3-stars

The New Selfish

As stated (repeatedly) elsewhere, I find selfish behaviour to be up there with the very worst traits of humankind.

 

Our Green New Deal has introduced a few new categories to be deemed as selfish that, to be fair, only the purest Green had previously thought about. I have to confess that I was not one of them!

 

Here’s just two to consider:

 

1. Flying. Seemed a good idea at first as far less cars on the road, no? It is hard to over-emphasise just how bad flying is for the planet. It’s everything bad on the ground, with more fuel, and up there far closer to where the particles are heading to. Therefore, we have to fly less. It’s annoying, but hey, look on the bright side: no airports!

 

2. Second Homes (yes, even in the UK). Doesn’t seem an evil thing to do, does it? But let’s consider:

 

(a)    You owning it means someone else can’t (bizarrely, there are roughly as many second homes as there are homeless people (I assume this is just coincidence!));

(b)   You eliminate that home’s potential trade with the local area (in a typical tourist area, local businesses badly struggle off-season);

(c)    You increase your environmental impact;

(d)   You drive up local prices unnecessarily. There are numerous small towns in the UK where local people can’t afford to live; thus, they move to the already over-crowded large cities. This model is not sustainable!

 

Let’s put the above into context. Flyers and Second-homers are not evil, but sadly, on a small island (or planet) with increasingly scarce resources, they are doing more harm than good.

 

The government is unlikely to do anything to prevent (a) or (b) as it would lose the middle class vote (I am still waiting for a Party – any Party – to deal with tax cheats).

 

Thus, it is down to incentivisation, legislation and good old trust. Are we willing to make the commitment to lessen our selfish behaviour??