Climate Change Heresy?

Before I start today I want to assert that I am not a climate change denier. I am fully bought into global warming and its impacts and that man (although by no means all of mankind) has contributed to an increasing rate of warming.
What I am confused about is why we seem to care so much about the impacts of global warming. I am genuinely looking for a compelling argument to explain this because the main arguments that are generally used seem to fall short.

One of the strangest arguments used is that we need to “save the planet”: that we need to wrap our arms around the planet, beg for its forgiveness and make amends for the terrible ills we have brought upon it. I find this argument particularly odd because, obviously to me, the earth hasn’t a conscience and so doesn’t give a hoot about the environment. And if it could think and talk I don’t think the earth would care whether the environment consisted of 100% carbon dioxide or sulphur or whatever. We don’t need to halt climate change to save the earth; the earth will go on existing whatever the make-up of its environment.

Another argument for halting global warming is that the resulting changing landscape will cause the earth to be less habitable for us. Receding polar icecaps will cause rising sea levels; currently inhabited islands or coastlines will be reclaimed by the sea; deserts will increase in size; certain equatorial environments will become too harsh to live in; weather events will become more extreme. I deny none of this but surely one of the major reasons for the evolutionary success of human beings is that we are remarkably good at adapting to changing environments. So if the landscape changes, sea levels rise, will people not move to more hospitable environments or adapt to the climate they live in? Yes, there will be issues in moving (including migration) but as a race, on the macro level, this is not a big challenge.

Environmentalists often argue that we should attempt to halt climate change in order to preserve environments for other species that are entirely blameless. But the history of life is the history of evolution; species become extinct and species adapt and survive. I know that man-made climate change may be responsible for an increased rate of species extinction but, whereas some species will become extinct, very many others will survive - others will adapt slightly and then survive. It is an interesting moral/philosophical question whether we should be responsible for other species on the planet, and the religious may argue that humans, as the “chosen” species, should ensure the survival of other species because God placed other species on the earth for our benefit. But this religious argument is the only reasoning to justify an ongoing husbandry of the earth. If you accept the secular argument that life on earth, in all its glory and variety, is a random occurrence with no innate purpose then “saving the planet” for the furtherance of other species is not rational. To repeat, very many species will survive anyway.

Perhaps the most persuasive argument used for acting to avert climate change is to safeguard the environment for future generations – to bequeath the earth to them as we know it. But I still find this a curious argument. Billions of people from our own generation live on starvation rations and die of curable and preventable diseases on a daily basis. And yet, despite the human race having the means and technology to prevent starvation and to cure many fatal illnesses, we still let billions live in these conditions while a few people have untold riches and live in almost unimaginable luxury. And it’s generally the likes that have enormous comparative wealth that are most responsible for man-made climate change whereas the poor of the earth are blameless. So I don’t buy the “think about future generations” argument. We deliberately don’t look after the living, breathing current generation so the concern for future generations seems ingenuine to say the least.

So I’m not sure about the reasons for acting on climate change although I am open to persuasion. If anyone can give me an irrefutable argument for halting climate change then I will convert tomorrow.

Do we really live in a Democracy?

Is the UK really a democratic country? If so, to what degree?

A lot of us spend most of our lives working in organisations large and small, private and public, but very few of these organisations could be described as democratic. The argument put forward by the neo-liberals is that firstly, our ability to choose by putting our money where our mouths are is democracy and secondly, that the shareholders of a company (in the case of a publicly listed company) have a vote at the AGM which again is democracy. But this is the democracy of an economics textbook; it’s not the “one person, one vote” democracy that most people prescribe to or understand.

Our everyday lives in organisations are not democratic. Far from it. We don’t get a vote in what policy the company adopts and we don’t get to vote the CEO out if we don’t like him or her and we don’t get to vote on salaries. We don’t vote at all.

And our progress within organisations relies not just on our abilities and the work we put in (which would, at least, represent meritocracy) but very heavily on patronage (i.e. the boss must like you in order for you to be promoted). You could be brilliant at your job, work all hours and be very popular amongst your co-workers (which is what you’d need to get on in a democracy) but if you keep disagreeing with your manager then you are going nowhere. The system produces smiling, nodding conformists: yes men and women.

One may argue that democracy isn’t so important in corporate or other businesses; it’s in politics that we want the democracy. But we see the same trend in politics.

How is it that popular opinion can be heavily in favour or against a certain course of action and yet the government of the day does the opposite? Popular opinion, for instance, was against the UK invasion of Iraq and yet still we went in.

The reason this happens is that there is too much power in the executive and, especially, in the party leaders’ and Prime Minister’s hands. Politicians’ careers are decided more by the leader of a political party than by the electorate. If a politician gets elected in a safe seat for hers or his party then he/she doesn’t need to worry about wooing electors. Instead, the politician seeks the patronage of the party leadership, representing the party line loyally, nodding and saying yes when required, just like in any other organisation. The result is that, generally, what the leader says, goes.

I remember watching Labour Party conferences back in the 1980s. They were scrappy and argumentative but they were also exciting and felt democratic. That style of Labour conference was closed down by the “modernisers” and finally put to bed by the New Labour project because it didn’t “play well” in the media. Since then the conference, and all politics frankly, has been corporatized, packaged up to look slick and efficient and all power has been transferred away from the grass roots and into the leadership. It looks more “saleable” on the telly but democratic it ain’t.

And even in electing politicians to parliament in the first place we get democratically short-changed. Many votes are wasted in elections. In far too many constituencies the majority vote against the elected candidate and, so, far too many of us are left unrepresented by parliament, disenfranchised from the electoral process.

Demonstrations, one may argue, are another symbol of democracy that, it seems, are being deliberately discouraged. Whenever we see a demonstration these days it is usually accompanied by a commentary from the police, various politicians or organisations underlining the damage done by the minority and justifying ever more stringent policing methods to contain the demonstration. It is rare to hear in the media that the majority were very well behaved and the cause is a legitimate one.

It seems that democracy, with all its messiness and uncertainty, is being closed down slowly but surely, bit by bit, in favour of an approach that is easier to control, easier to order and easier to sell. From the corporation to the political party and on to the way we are governed we have accepted a closing down of political involvement, of having any real say except in our consumer choices and even in the way we choose who represents us.

It may be slicker, more controlled and more media friendly but it certainly doesn’t feel like democracy.

To buy or not to buy?

I was asked this lunchtime when I would be buying a house. It’s not the first time I’ve been asked this, god no; I get asked this question on a fairly frequent basis to the point where I could call it “societal pressure”.

Whenever I give the answer that I’m not completely sure I want to own property, the response is normally a concerned nod or frown which seems to conceal the implicit question: “what’s wrong with you?” OK, maybe I’m being a bit sensitive but there is no mistaking that the contemporary view, even moral, is that one should aspire to owning property. I blame Margaret Thatcher for this…and so many other things but that’s another issue for another day.

Sometimes it is explained to me – patronisingly, I may add – that a property is an investment, an asset, and it doesn’t matter how much money you have to outlay, it will pay dividends in the long run. I understand this, of course, and it doesn’t need to be explained. The paradox is that I am conservative when it comes to money and see the huge loan that one has to take to buy a house to be a very big risk. What if I lose my job? What if I become ill? What if I quickly need to sell for some other reason? And what if one of these things happens when I still owe more than the property is worth? Selling won’t save me. It’s a financially ruinous situation and it feels like too big a gamble to take, no matter how safe this gamble has shown to be historically.

The other problem I have with buying is that I place a large value on my independence and flexibility. If one day I decide I want to change my lifestyle or up sticks and move to another country I want the freedom to be able to do that. Having a property and huge mortgage - for it would be huge given today's house prices - would mean that it would be less easy to change my life, if that is what I wanted to do, and would also mean that I would need to keep earning at my current rate (or whatever salary I’d based my mortgage payments on), hence locking myself into a pair of lovely golden handcuffs. Where’s the freedom in that?

It has been argued that the reticence to buy a property is symptomatic of a broader inability to commit long term. I don’t think this is true. I have managed to maintain long-term relationships with friends, even while living abroad, and have a close and ongoing relationship with my family. I think I can commit but I wouldn’t consider a commitment to a material possession (such as a house) as a particularly profound one.

But, aside from all this, I still feel that weight of expectation from friends, family, colleagues and the government, frankly, to buy a property in order to be a valued and fully integrated member of society. So I don’t know what to do.

Is anybody else in this quandary? Has anyone else been there? How have you weighed up the need for independence against the pressure to conform, the long-term expected gain against the short-term risk, especially in the current economic climate?

Any advice would be more than welcome.

What is terrorism, anyway?

This is my first ever blog – you have to start somewhere, don’t you?

I’m doing this mainly for therapeutic reasons, writing whatever is on my mind, about whatever subject, really. I’m likely to be writing about the things that most occupy me, though, which include politics, a bit of sport, current affairs generally and the frustrations of corporate life.

The blog may change based on where I see things going or depending if I get any feedback at all.

A like a bit of a debate so will also engage in discussion on whatever subject anyone cares to raise.

I’m going to start off small and then go in whatever direction feels appropriate.

So, where to start…

David Miliband and the terrorists
I listened to the latest edition of Great Lives the other day (a Radio 4 programme presented by Matthew Parris) in which David Miliband was making the case for Joe Slovo, “a leading member of the African National Congress and the first housing minister in Nelson Mandela's government” [quote from the BBC website]. I thought it was a very thoughtful discussion and raised some very interesting philosophical points, particularly relating to the use of force to achieve a political aim (in this case, the overthrow of the South African apartheid regime).

William Hague has condemned David Miliband for saying in the program that there are some situations where terrorism is justified. In response to William Hague’s comments the Today programme (Radio 4, 17/8/2009) hosted a brief debate between Sir Menzies Campbell and Andy Hull from the Institute of Public Policy and Research, both of which argued that there is no justification for terrorism.

I was disappointed by this furore for two reasons. Firstly, it is seldom we hear leading politicians being entirely open and honest about what they think or believe in so I thought it was brave of David Miliband to nominate Joe Slovo as his Great Life and then to show understanding for the methods he used in the fight against apartheid. I would like to hear more politicians open up and express themselves freely without other politicians (such as William Hague) being so quick to pass judgement for political gain. It is just such cheap point scoring that closes down debate, causing politicians to be guarded in all responses and that makes kings of spin doctors. Let’s have more openness and honesty in public debate.

The second reason for my disappointment was the narrowness of the debate presented by Radio 4 in response. In the Great Lives programme, Joe Slovo’s daughter challenged Matthew Parris to describe “terrorism”. Matthew Parris answered that terrorism was the use of violence to pursue political ends but failed to answer the subsequent question of whether, therefore, the invasion of Iraq by the U.S.A. was an act of terrorism (and I would offer the recent Israeli incursion and bombing of Palestinian territory as a similar question).

In constraining the debate to the emotionally loaded question of whether terrorism is justified or not the BBC patronises its audience and produces obvious and easy answers. What reasonable person would argue that terrorism is justified? If the question of whether force is sometimes justified to achieve a political outcome was asked, the answers and debate would be much more informative and interesting.

The use of the word terrorism loads a debate and is unhelpful in deciding whether force is justified. It seems to me that the contemporary description of terrorism relies on the level of resource available to the perpetrator. So if you have the funds to support a huge army equipped with cutting edge weapons and nuclear arms, then your use of force is justified; if, on the other hand, your funds are short and you have to rely on home made devices, guerrilla tactics and whatever you can get your hands on, then you are a terrorist.

When the big boy in the playground steals sweets, his means are justified; when the small boy fights back, he is a terrorist!