I was in a meeting with a major company the other day. As part of my day job I am involved in trying to get some ambitious pro-environment legislation passed. This business wanted to plug their new product, which is probably much better, but still not great. So as usual there is the discussion over whether we should accept the less-shit-but-still-worrying tech or hold the line and be purists. Usually you have to compromise at some point, even if only inside your own brain. The trouble is, that sometimes something happens that makes you think that we are approaching this from completely the wrong direction.
Yes, some of the technologies we were discussing are essential, and some are so useful that you would be either a kamikaze campaigner or a fool to deny we should try and find workable replacements for. But then there is silly string. As in stupid pink string from an aerosol. At some point in the meeting it transpired that one of the products we were debating on finding a less-shit alternative for was that essential of western civilization, party string. From a can.
Ah well, says the industry, they can't use green chemical A, because it might explode in little Richmond's face. Fair enough, I don't want that. So does this mean we should use the dubious chemical instead?... grumble grumble... I suppose so. Or maybe not. Call me a fanatic, but I don't think we need silly string at all. If we can't find an environmentally friendly way of making it, then perhaps we should let it slide into obscurity. Let it go. Above all, don't let it block the passage of more important changes.
The trouble is of course that there are so many useless but slightly fun things in the world that would have to go the way of the dodo if we used that logic that it is hard to know where to start. Plastic footballs, balloons, the toy spiders in Christmas crackers. Etc etc etc etc. To suggest in a policy meeting that something might actually be completely useless in the first place normally just draws amused stares or sympathetic smiles, followed by a reminder that these things do matter to the manufacturers of silly string, as though that is a good enough reason.
This is obviously just the tip of the iceberg, but to my mind it is a useful example of the need for those involved in the nitty gritty of the environmental struggle to appraise what it is we are really doing, and perhaps everyone, from policymakers to campaigners should be forced to take a step back and examine what we are actually arguing over.
Thursday, 5 April 2012
Monday, 2 April 2012
Welsh Government cancels its badger cull, surely England must follow suit
I know this is old news now, but I am just saying a big 'hooray' that Wales has decided to cancel its proposed badger cull, and instead focus on combating TB in cattle through vaccination of badgers and farm hygiene measures. This is an excellent move, since there was no evidence at all that a cull would have been effective, and some evidence that it may have made bovine TB worse - not to mention nearly exterminating a protected species. The move also puts additional pressure on DEFRA to abandon is ridiculous and unscientific culling plan that will see farmers authorized to shoot badgers in the open at night time.
On a wider note, I hope that moves to vaccinate badgers will lead to a more serious appraisal of how we deal with the idea of vaccination in cattle. As I understand it cattle are culled if they have a reaction to TB test, which test for a response to TB antigens. Essentially what this shows is that they have been exposed to the disease at some point in their lives, and developed antibodies. Trouble is that most have no symptoms, so basically the odds are that in culling those with immune response but no symptoms, you are culling the most resistant members of the herd, those who might naturally fight off the disease. It is for this reason too that cattle cannot be vaccinated - because immunized animals will test positive in an anti-body test. Imagine a situation where you killed all those humans who tested positive for measles, but who never developed symptoms.. you are genetically selecting an increasingly vulnerable population...
On a wider note, I hope that moves to vaccinate badgers will lead to a more serious appraisal of how we deal with the idea of vaccination in cattle. As I understand it cattle are culled if they have a reaction to TB test, which test for a response to TB antigens. Essentially what this shows is that they have been exposed to the disease at some point in their lives, and developed antibodies. Trouble is that most have no symptoms, so basically the odds are that in culling those with immune response but no symptoms, you are culling the most resistant members of the herd, those who might naturally fight off the disease. It is for this reason too that cattle cannot be vaccinated - because immunized animals will test positive in an anti-body test. Imagine a situation where you killed all those humans who tested positive for measles, but who never developed symptoms.. you are genetically selecting an increasingly vulnerable population...
Monday, 12 March 2012
UK opposing higher EU renewable targets?
Wow. Well, according to some leaked documents on Business Green, elements in the UK government are saying that they are opposing an extension of the European renewable energy targets. Right now they are 20% by 2020, and there are proposals to extend them into 2030 and beyond. The Department for Energy and Climate Change seems to be suggested that it wants a broader mix (i.e. nuclear) and that the targets should include this.
This is a terrible idea, and one will will likely turn into a battle. Nuclear is not necessarily the worst thing ever in my opinion, although I do have concerns over waste, proliferation and cost, but it is a poor excuse for a climate policy. Furthermore I suspect it will be left for dust in the coming decades by the rapidly falling cost of renewables. Failure to invest in renewables now and to cling to the nuclear white elephant could seem like a absurd move in a few years.
Indeed as I have said before this is my big hope for this issue - that pretty soon renewable electricity will be cheap enough to make all of these arguments seem academic, and that all the people who said it would never worked now claim to have backed it all along.
This is a terrible idea, and one will will likely turn into a battle. Nuclear is not necessarily the worst thing ever in my opinion, although I do have concerns over waste, proliferation and cost, but it is a poor excuse for a climate policy. Furthermore I suspect it will be left for dust in the coming decades by the rapidly falling cost of renewables. Failure to invest in renewables now and to cling to the nuclear white elephant could seem like a absurd move in a few years.
Indeed as I have said before this is my big hope for this issue - that pretty soon renewable electricity will be cheap enough to make all of these arguments seem academic, and that all the people who said it would never worked now claim to have backed it all along.
Thursday, 8 March 2012
Why our attitude to sexism needs to change
Happy International Women’s Day. I think we should scrap it, in the UK at least. Seriously. This is not some flippant attempt to undermine the issues that face women in the modern world, or a whiny chance to say that men also suffer discrimination, but my attempt to articulate that if we really want to tackle the issues of gender discrimination faced by women and men our society we need a more subtle and inclusive approach, and one that does not place everything in the context of women's rights. Let me try and explain.
Okay, I understand that this would all be very different if I lived in Pakistan or the 1970s, but I don’t. I live in the UK so I am talking about modern UK/Western society, and having a woman’s day seems not only anachronistic, but a poor response to the complex social issues tied up with gender. Maybe we could balance up with an international men’s day, but I would rather have some kind of gender respect day.
The trouble with gender politics is that in popular terms they are so one-sided, and that they take a whole bunch of complicated gender issues and boil them down into issues of discrimination against women. There is much talk of addressing the way that society views women, and much talk of men changing their ways, but very little talk about changing the way society, male and female, views men. For example how do we really view the stay-at home dad, or the old man who enjoys watching children play? How do we raise our boys, and why do so many think they need to act a way we say we don't want? Why is an unmarried father not allowed to get parental responsibility and his child a passport without the mother’s consent, while the mother needs no such permission?(1) These issues receive precious little discussion, especially compared to the standard fare of changing society's attitudes to women. Obviously this situation has evolved for historical reasons, but it has to change sometime.
There are also many over-simplifications, preyed on by the press. Take the pay gap issue. To most people that is about men and women getting paid different amounts for doing the same job. Actually that is exactly what it is not about. It is about the average earnings of men and women in society as a whole, and the largest differences are accounted for by time off to raise children, historical imbalances and career choices. Any discrimination is subtle, and will not be addressed through headlines and blunt legislation. There is also another way of looking at it, which is that men in this society still do not feel able, or are not allowed, to take time off to raise children or to work part time. And indeed much of society looks down upon such men. By contrast if we are to turn to Scandinavia with its famously generous parental-leave (which can be divided amongst mothers and fathers), this is widely credited with helping the situation of women. But it has done so by empowering and including men, as well as women.
In the area of violence – I received a tweet today saying ‘Violence against women is ever-present, across the globe and in all walks of life. This needs to change’. I agree. But I also think we need to question our acceptance of violence toward men.
Men and boys are more likely to be victims of violent assault than women,(2) and are almost as likely to be victims of domestic violence.(3) Women are much more likely to be victims of sexual assault, but men do suffer from this too. In the US prison system Human Rights Watch estimated 140,000 had been raped in 2001, over 22% of inmate during their prison term.(4) Not only is this a scandal but it is accepted and is made the butt of many jokes. Imagine the outrage if ‘don’t drop the soap’ was a fun way of referring to raping female prisoners. At the same time it is almost impossible for a woman to rape a male under the law in the UK, since it requires you to have a penis, whereas an 18 year-old boy is a statutory rapist for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend.(5) Even the crime sexual assault against a child carries the unnecessary pronoun 'he'. Yet we know that older women can sexually assault minors or pressure young men, with sometime serious consequences.
At the same time there are endless stories of teenage boys pressurizing girls into having sex etc., and the need to empower girls to say no. This is true, but again it has been made one sided. There is clearly a need to allow girls to stand up for themselves, but often the result of this type of thing is the message that boys are basically bad, and must be restrained at all times, while women are hapless victims. This is the case sometimes, but I also remember the endless bullying and jeering that schoolgirls would direct at the boys who were not sexually confident or aggressive. If a certain kind of girl is attracted to a certain kind of aggressive male behaviour, there is little reason why that boy would change, unless educated otherwise. At the same time if we are told that all boys are essentially dangerous/unpleasant where does this leave those that aren’t, and where also does this leave individual responsibility? The assumption that all boys are inherently predatory is a dangerous path to follow for both men and women.
I do not want to get in to a pointless exercise listing the alternative areas of sexism in our society, or to claim that discrimination against women does not exist, and let me say once again that I am not for a second trying to downplay the problems that inequality, violence, power imbalances can cause to my fellow humans.
I am simply trying to explain that by constantly defining issues as women’s rights issues, we divide ourselves unnecessarily, divide society, and alienate a whole host of men who have never had a male boss, or who would no sooner assault a woman as fly off a cliff, but who are tired of being treated as though gender is entirely a one way issue. These men will become less interested, less responsive. If we really want to tackle gender problems and sexism, we need to start including both genders – not viewing everything through a female prism. I hope this is not misunderstood.
1. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/ParentsRights/DG_4002954
2. http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2009/05/who-is-most-likely-to-be-a-crime-victim.html
3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence
4. http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/report1.html
5. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents
Okay, I understand that this would all be very different if I lived in Pakistan or the 1970s, but I don’t. I live in the UK so I am talking about modern UK/Western society, and having a woman’s day seems not only anachronistic, but a poor response to the complex social issues tied up with gender. Maybe we could balance up with an international men’s day, but I would rather have some kind of gender respect day.
The trouble with gender politics is that in popular terms they are so one-sided, and that they take a whole bunch of complicated gender issues and boil them down into issues of discrimination against women. There is much talk of addressing the way that society views women, and much talk of men changing their ways, but very little talk about changing the way society, male and female, views men. For example how do we really view the stay-at home dad, or the old man who enjoys watching children play? How do we raise our boys, and why do so many think they need to act a way we say we don't want? Why is an unmarried father not allowed to get parental responsibility and his child a passport without the mother’s consent, while the mother needs no such permission?(1) These issues receive precious little discussion, especially compared to the standard fare of changing society's attitudes to women. Obviously this situation has evolved for historical reasons, but it has to change sometime.
There are also many over-simplifications, preyed on by the press. Take the pay gap issue. To most people that is about men and women getting paid different amounts for doing the same job. Actually that is exactly what it is not about. It is about the average earnings of men and women in society as a whole, and the largest differences are accounted for by time off to raise children, historical imbalances and career choices. Any discrimination is subtle, and will not be addressed through headlines and blunt legislation. There is also another way of looking at it, which is that men in this society still do not feel able, or are not allowed, to take time off to raise children or to work part time. And indeed much of society looks down upon such men. By contrast if we are to turn to Scandinavia with its famously generous parental-leave (which can be divided amongst mothers and fathers), this is widely credited with helping the situation of women. But it has done so by empowering and including men, as well as women.
In the area of violence – I received a tweet today saying ‘Violence against women is ever-present, across the globe and in all walks of life. This needs to change’. I agree. But I also think we need to question our acceptance of violence toward men.
Men and boys are more likely to be victims of violent assault than women,(2) and are almost as likely to be victims of domestic violence.(3) Women are much more likely to be victims of sexual assault, but men do suffer from this too. In the US prison system Human Rights Watch estimated 140,000 had been raped in 2001, over 22% of inmate during their prison term.(4) Not only is this a scandal but it is accepted and is made the butt of many jokes. Imagine the outrage if ‘don’t drop the soap’ was a fun way of referring to raping female prisoners. At the same time it is almost impossible for a woman to rape a male under the law in the UK, since it requires you to have a penis, whereas an 18 year-old boy is a statutory rapist for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend.(5) Even the crime sexual assault against a child carries the unnecessary pronoun 'he'. Yet we know that older women can sexually assault minors or pressure young men, with sometime serious consequences.
At the same time there are endless stories of teenage boys pressurizing girls into having sex etc., and the need to empower girls to say no. This is true, but again it has been made one sided. There is clearly a need to allow girls to stand up for themselves, but often the result of this type of thing is the message that boys are basically bad, and must be restrained at all times, while women are hapless victims. This is the case sometimes, but I also remember the endless bullying and jeering that schoolgirls would direct at the boys who were not sexually confident or aggressive. If a certain kind of girl is attracted to a certain kind of aggressive male behaviour, there is little reason why that boy would change, unless educated otherwise. At the same time if we are told that all boys are essentially dangerous/unpleasant where does this leave those that aren’t, and where also does this leave individual responsibility? The assumption that all boys are inherently predatory is a dangerous path to follow for both men and women.
I do not want to get in to a pointless exercise listing the alternative areas of sexism in our society, or to claim that discrimination against women does not exist, and let me say once again that I am not for a second trying to downplay the problems that inequality, violence, power imbalances can cause to my fellow humans.
I am simply trying to explain that by constantly defining issues as women’s rights issues, we divide ourselves unnecessarily, divide society, and alienate a whole host of men who have never had a male boss, or who would no sooner assault a woman as fly off a cliff, but who are tired of being treated as though gender is entirely a one way issue. These men will become less interested, less responsive. If we really want to tackle gender problems and sexism, we need to start including both genders – not viewing everything through a female prism. I hope this is not misunderstood.
1. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/ParentsRights/DG_4002954
2. http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2009/05/who-is-most-likely-to-be-a-crime-victim.html
3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence
4. http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/report1.html
5. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents
Friday, 17 February 2012
If the Falklands were any other country, the 'Left' would be rallying to its side
I have long been fascinated by the Falkland Islands. As a zoologist their isolation, wildness and spectacular wildlife is the primary draw, but I admit to interest in the idea of a distant community of British people living so far from home, particularly since I spent time on Ascension Island, one of its fellow South Atlantic islands (although very far away!), where I met some of its citizens and got an insight into life in these remote enclaves.
Unfortunately the Falklands are now back in the news for all the wrong reasons. The Argentine government is attempting to isolate them and their people, and to accuse the UK government of militarizing them (although I can't help but think it might have been the invasion that militarized them!!).
What really bugs me about the Falklands issue is the attitude of so many on the left who basically assume that because the UK is involved, it must be in the wrong, and that the Falklands must naturally be 'returned', or that defending the islands is gun-boat diplomacy.
Now, I am an environmental campaigner, generally of the left, mildly anti-capitalist and no stranger to blockading a power station or being smacked by police. What really frustrates me is that I can't help but feel that if any two other countries were involved, the Falklands would be a left wing cause celebre. If Argentina was America or China, and Britain was Peru, students would be hanging the Falklands' sheep-based flags out their windows.
The only claim that Argentina has is that a) its predecessor the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata inherited the Falklands for a few years between its independence from Spain and losing them, and b) it is the nearest country. Yes maybe at the time it was wrong for the tiny Argentine colony to be driven out, but they themselves were part of the colonial game, and by that logic Ireland belongs to the UK, the UK belongs to France, Europe belongs to the Mongols and Argentina should hand back all its land to the descendants of the Amerindians.
On the other hand, there was no indigenous population in the Falklands, and the people who live there are perfectly clear where their allegiances lie. They have been under British jurisdiction for nearly 200 years, and have their own unique identity. They have been given the right of self-determination, and could join up with Argentina if they wished. But they don't.
I think one of the problems for the 'Left' is that they forever associate the Falklands with the rebirth of Margaret Thatcher's fortunes, and can never forgive them for that. The trouble is that whether the war was botched, or whether it should have been prevented, the point is that after the invasion it was the only thing to do. Anything less would have been the shameless abandonment of those people. Just because you hate Thatcher, doesn't mean you should take it out on the Falklanders.
There are others who claim to be upset because they see it as a big waste of money. I can only assume that they mean the military presence on the Islands, because the people pay their own way in every other respect. Well yes, it is expensive and that is sad, but so are lots of things, and we have no right to abandon the people just because it might be convenient. And in any case, if Argentina stopped threatening the islands, the military could leave. Then maybe the people would get to mix and become friends after all.
Unfortunately the Falklands are now back in the news for all the wrong reasons. The Argentine government is attempting to isolate them and their people, and to accuse the UK government of militarizing them (although I can't help but think it might have been the invasion that militarized them!!).
What really bugs me about the Falklands issue is the attitude of so many on the left who basically assume that because the UK is involved, it must be in the wrong, and that the Falklands must naturally be 'returned', or that defending the islands is gun-boat diplomacy.
Now, I am an environmental campaigner, generally of the left, mildly anti-capitalist and no stranger to blockading a power station or being smacked by police. What really frustrates me is that I can't help but feel that if any two other countries were involved, the Falklands would be a left wing cause celebre. If Argentina was America or China, and Britain was Peru, students would be hanging the Falklands' sheep-based flags out their windows.
The only claim that Argentina has is that a) its predecessor the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata inherited the Falklands for a few years between its independence from Spain and losing them, and b) it is the nearest country. Yes maybe at the time it was wrong for the tiny Argentine colony to be driven out, but they themselves were part of the colonial game, and by that logic Ireland belongs to the UK, the UK belongs to France, Europe belongs to the Mongols and Argentina should hand back all its land to the descendants of the Amerindians.
On the other hand, there was no indigenous population in the Falklands, and the people who live there are perfectly clear where their allegiances lie. They have been under British jurisdiction for nearly 200 years, and have their own unique identity. They have been given the right of self-determination, and could join up with Argentina if they wished. But they don't.
I think one of the problems for the 'Left' is that they forever associate the Falklands with the rebirth of Margaret Thatcher's fortunes, and can never forgive them for that. The trouble is that whether the war was botched, or whether it should have been prevented, the point is that after the invasion it was the only thing to do. Anything less would have been the shameless abandonment of those people. Just because you hate Thatcher, doesn't mean you should take it out on the Falklanders.
There are others who claim to be upset because they see it as a big waste of money. I can only assume that they mean the military presence on the Islands, because the people pay their own way in every other respect. Well yes, it is expensive and that is sad, but so are lots of things, and we have no right to abandon the people just because it might be convenient. And in any case, if Argentina stopped threatening the islands, the military could leave. Then maybe the people would get to mix and become friends after all.
Monday, 16 January 2012
Environmental implications of Scottish independence
I have given my views on Scottish independence elsewhere, but in general I am opposed. Not because I think Scotland is weak or anything like that, but simply because I think we are better off united. However right now I want to have a think about what some of the environmental implications of separation might be.
Clearly in many areas it would make no difference. Biodiversity, fisheries and rural management are all devolved anyway, and short of leaving the EU there is little that can be done about the Common Agricultural or Fisheries Policies. In England and Wales the more zoophobic elements of the Tories might be emboldened, but other than that there would be little impact. More intangible might be the loss of affinity with wildlife and landscapes in other parts of the country if they become separate, but that is hard to quantify.
Where the big differences could take place would be in energy policy. Scotland is busy trying to turn itself into a renewable energy powerhouse. Right now it can do this as part of much larger energy market, and the ROCs that help to subsidise its renewable energy development are paid for on a UK wide basis through a levy on energy bills. In an independent Scotland, these bills would need to be paid for by a much smaller population. Certainly the electricity could be exported, but the rUK would be unwilling to pay the ROCs, any more that it would be willing to pay for the feed in tariffs of Germany, France or Ireland. At the same time the rUK would continue to account for the largest share of the offshore wind market (of the more than 40GW of offshore wind in planning, more than 30 GW are in England), and would likely pursue closer links with Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands in the Southern North Sea. This would encourage offshore wind developers and manufacturers to base themselves in the rUK to avoid regulatory or currency risk by attaching themselves to the smaller Scottish market.
At the same time, oil will account for a significant percentage of the Scottish economy, so much so that it is hard to see the government taking any environmental or economic decisions against its will. An independent Scotland will be even more in hoc to the oil and gas industry than the UK as a whole is to financial services.
On the opposite side, an oil starved rUK would be forced to look elsewhere. This could go several ways. In the worst scenario it would involve widespread search for and extraction of unconventional oil, coal and shale gas to cover the gas. Next could be massive investment in nuclear power. The best case would be that the loss of the bulk of North Sea fossil fuels gives the rUK a kick up the ass and forces it to invest heavily in renewables and energy efficiency, but I would not hold my breath.
To be continued...
Clearly in many areas it would make no difference. Biodiversity, fisheries and rural management are all devolved anyway, and short of leaving the EU there is little that can be done about the Common Agricultural or Fisheries Policies. In England and Wales the more zoophobic elements of the Tories might be emboldened, but other than that there would be little impact. More intangible might be the loss of affinity with wildlife and landscapes in other parts of the country if they become separate, but that is hard to quantify.
Where the big differences could take place would be in energy policy. Scotland is busy trying to turn itself into a renewable energy powerhouse. Right now it can do this as part of much larger energy market, and the ROCs that help to subsidise its renewable energy development are paid for on a UK wide basis through a levy on energy bills. In an independent Scotland, these bills would need to be paid for by a much smaller population. Certainly the electricity could be exported, but the rUK would be unwilling to pay the ROCs, any more that it would be willing to pay for the feed in tariffs of Germany, France or Ireland. At the same time the rUK would continue to account for the largest share of the offshore wind market (of the more than 40GW of offshore wind in planning, more than 30 GW are in England), and would likely pursue closer links with Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands in the Southern North Sea. This would encourage offshore wind developers and manufacturers to base themselves in the rUK to avoid regulatory or currency risk by attaching themselves to the smaller Scottish market.
At the same time, oil will account for a significant percentage of the Scottish economy, so much so that it is hard to see the government taking any environmental or economic decisions against its will. An independent Scotland will be even more in hoc to the oil and gas industry than the UK as a whole is to financial services.
On the opposite side, an oil starved rUK would be forced to look elsewhere. This could go several ways. In the worst scenario it would involve widespread search for and extraction of unconventional oil, coal and shale gas to cover the gas. Next could be massive investment in nuclear power. The best case would be that the loss of the bulk of North Sea fossil fuels gives the rUK a kick up the ass and forces it to invest heavily in renewables and energy efficiency, but I would not hold my breath.
To be continued...
Wednesday, 7 December 2011
Killing renewables is like killing the computer
When the Yongle and Hongxi Emperors grounded the Chinese fleet in the 15th century AD, citing the high cost of exploration, few would have predicted that they were beginning the process which would isolate China from the world for centuries, and impose a technological and political penalty from which it is only now emerging.
Similarly, when the UK civil service decided that commercial satellites and space travel had no future, they condemned the country to be the first in the world to develop, and then give up, an indigenous space launch capacity – technology which would then go on to form the foundation for the French Ariane rocket programme on which much of the world relies.
What these show is that we cannot predict what the outcomes of our actions will be, and that the effects of science and technology will often be beyond what we imagine. We are in a similar situation now in trying to deal with our environmental and economic challenges in the West.
In the UK, and the West in general, I feel there are many on both the left and the right who fail to grasp the position we are in. There are many on the left who feel, like the Chinese Emperors, that we can somehow close ourselves off from the world, that our social and economic policies exist in a vacuum and that we can simply carry on as we have done for the last fifty years. Those who oppose rises in the pension age for example, to my mind, or who believe that deficits do not matter are simply refusing to accept the facts facing them. There are also people who object all aspirational projects, such as space science or ‘Big Physics’ - arguing that every penny should be spent on the health service.
At the same time there are many on the right who are equally blinkered. Those who argue for a purely industrial approach to science, or who do not see that slashing higher education budgets will cripple innovation, for example. The divide on the right is most clearly seen with regard to green technology. In my mind they are in the same mindset as the Emperor or the mandarins who killed the British space rocket. Green tech is the future, and many others are recognising this. Nations that fail to get onboard could be left behind, and short term calculations based on five or ten year projections of cost or production capacity miss the point entirely. If there had been a feed-in tariff for computers in the 1960s you can be sure that someone would have cancelled it, pointing out that we would never have more than five or six, and that at best the PC would be supplying 3% of our computing needs, and if they were such a great idea why did the government need to invest in them in the first place.
Similarly, when the UK civil service decided that commercial satellites and space travel had no future, they condemned the country to be the first in the world to develop, and then give up, an indigenous space launch capacity – technology which would then go on to form the foundation for the French Ariane rocket programme on which much of the world relies.
What these show is that we cannot predict what the outcomes of our actions will be, and that the effects of science and technology will often be beyond what we imagine. We are in a similar situation now in trying to deal with our environmental and economic challenges in the West.
In the UK, and the West in general, I feel there are many on both the left and the right who fail to grasp the position we are in. There are many on the left who feel, like the Chinese Emperors, that we can somehow close ourselves off from the world, that our social and economic policies exist in a vacuum and that we can simply carry on as we have done for the last fifty years. Those who oppose rises in the pension age for example, to my mind, or who believe that deficits do not matter are simply refusing to accept the facts facing them. There are also people who object all aspirational projects, such as space science or ‘Big Physics’ - arguing that every penny should be spent on the health service.
At the same time there are many on the right who are equally blinkered. Those who argue for a purely industrial approach to science, or who do not see that slashing higher education budgets will cripple innovation, for example. The divide on the right is most clearly seen with regard to green technology. In my mind they are in the same mindset as the Emperor or the mandarins who killed the British space rocket. Green tech is the future, and many others are recognising this. Nations that fail to get onboard could be left behind, and short term calculations based on five or ten year projections of cost or production capacity miss the point entirely. If there had been a feed-in tariff for computers in the 1960s you can be sure that someone would have cancelled it, pointing out that we would never have more than five or six, and that at best the PC would be supplying 3% of our computing needs, and if they were such a great idea why did the government need to invest in them in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
