Without the state

Climate change is really happening and humankind is causing it.

In a series of papers published last year, BEST presented their statistical analysis of 1.6 billion temperature reports spanning the last 200 years, controlling for possible biases in the data that are often cited by skeptics as reasons to doubt the reality of global warming.

Their analysis indicated that global warming is real — that the average global land temperature has risen by 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 degrees Celsius) since 1750, including 1.5 degrees F (0.9 degrees Celsius) in the past 50 years. The numbers closely agree with the findings of past studies by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA and others; but finally, they were rigorous enough to satisfy Muller.

Now, in a brand new study that probed the causes of that warming, the BEST team says it has cleared from blame the natural variations in Earth's climate that so often get implicated by skeptics. Muller and his colleagues implicate carbon dioxide emissions by humans as essentially the sole cause of global warming.

 "The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we've tried," he wrote Saturday (July 28) in a New York Times editorial. "Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don't prove causality and they shouldn't end skepticism, but they raise the bar: To be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does."

Related articles

Climate results convert sceptic: 'let the evidence change our minds'

Koch-funded climate scientist: I was wrong, humans are to blame

Libertarianism and the environment - revisited

I recently came across a brief review (in The Philosopher's Magazine) of a book by the philosopher Roger Scruton, Green Philosophy in which he claims (I haven't read it yet) to be setting out a green conservatism.  According to the Publisher's blurb this is based on the premise that the environment has up till now been the undisputed territory of the Left. I don't necessarily agree with that, but even if it were true, that is because the Right has abandoned the field. (I hate these simplistic labels, but for now Right and Left will do).

Back in 2006 I asked myself why so many Libertarians hate environmentalism. At the time I came to the conclusion that faced with the possible need for substantial state action, they preferred to simply deny there was an issue of concern in the first place.  Scruton's book appears to be an attempt to reclaim some of that ground. 

If this is to succeed, then there needs to be an end to the absurd hyperbole that calls Rachel Carson a mass murderer, Richard Attenborough a hater of humanity and which denounces  Greens generally as evil (while without a trace of irony complaining bitterly when similar claims are made about 'climate change deniers'.)

I'm not holding my breath...

Related articles

• This bastardised libertarianism makes 'freedom' an instrument of opression (guardian.co.uk)
• Why libertarians must deny climate change (guardian.co.uk)
• Environmentalism poses a problem for libertarian ideology (mattbruenig.com)
• How conservatives can help to tackle climate change | Roger Scruton (guardian.co.uk)

From my old garden

I moved house and had to leave behind my wonderful garden, a garden on which I had spent many hours of work.

Of course I took lots of photographs, which are some compensation, but I was devastated to discover that the new owner has ripped most of it out. ... See my Tabblo>

A Tale of Two Ecovillages: Damanhur and Findhorn

Damanhur in Italy and the Findhorn Community in Scotland have consciously set out to reduce their dependence on the global corporate economy and to re-weave the web of a more complex, locally based, social economy. In an era where local shops, post offices, schools and other facilities are closing down in unprecedented numbers across Europe, these two communities are experiencing substantial growth and diversification, opening new enterprises and generating new employment.

via trustcurrency.blogspot.com

Maggot breeders, conservatories and nuclear power stations

The universal nostrum offered by libertarians, for almost any social or political ill, is property rights. This is never more so in the UK than in relation to the UK planning system, for which they have nothing good to say. This is of course an understandable libertarian perspective, since the planning system is probably the greatest single intervention by the state in property matters. The roots of planning in the UK are however not a desire to control how land is used, but a concern for public health. On that basic concern, the present enormous superstructure has been erected.

A key date was 1947, with the passage of the Town and Country Planning Act. The Act, in effect, nationalised the right to develop land. It required all proposals for development, with a few exclusions, to secure planning permission from the local authority, with provision to appeal against refusal. That system essentially prevails now, although with much change in terminology and despite much windy rhetoric from both major parties about its damaging effects.

As part of my occasional series on controlling the growth of the state, in this post I intended to look at the claimed objectives for the planning system, to consider if those objectives are indeed valid and if valid to look at what alternatives might be possible, based on the principles of localism and minimal state intervention.

Trying to find a succinct summary of objectives is however rather harder than I expected. The former Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, when it was responsible for planning, had this rather 'Janet and John' explanation:

Planning is about how we plan for, and make decisions about, the future of our cities, towns and countryside. Planning has a long history, even thousands of years ago people will have discussed where to build homes and shelters!

Over the centuries, a more formal way of making these decisions was set up. So when we want to build a new house or someone wants to develop a new shopping centre, your local planning authority is responsible for deciding whether it should go ahead. 'Local planning authority' usually means the district or borough council, not the parish or town council.

Without a planning system, everyone could construct buildings anywhere, or use land in any way they wanted, no matter what effect this would have on other people who live or work in their area.

This is why we have a planning system.

So, Planning is about Planning...

Similarly, this document, titled "The Planning System:General Principles"  jumps straight into describing the structure of planning, without a principle, general or otherwise, in sight.

1. In England there is a hierarchical structure of guidance and plans covering national,
regional and local planning which includes:
• National Planning and Minerals Policy Statements and Guidance Notes.
• Regional Spatial Strategies.
• Local Development Frameworks.

So, Planning is about Plan Making...

Finally we have "Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development" in which we find:

5. Planning should facilitate and promote sustainable and inclusive patterns of urban and rural development by:

– making suitable land available for development in line with economic, social and environmental objectives to improve people’s quality of life;
– contributing to sustainable economic development;
– protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environment, the quality and character of the countryside, and existing communities;
– ensuring high quality development through good and inclusive design, and the efficient use of resources; and,
– ensuring that development supports existing communities and contributes to the creation of safe, sustainable, liveable and mixed communities with good access to jobs and key services for all members of the community.

This, while more explicit about what planning does, still leaves a lot of questions begged.

What are 'economic, social and environmental objectives to improve people’s quality of life' ? How should planning 'protect and enhance...existing communities? How do you define 'community' anyway in this context? How do you know when development is 'high quality', what is 'good and inclusive design'? What is the difference between 'protecting and enhancing...existing communities'  and 'ensuring that development supports existing communities'?

It is easy I know to pick holes in government pronouncements on policy. Most after all are designed to be vague, appealing to as many people as possible, without putting others off. In this case though PPS1 is meant to be a piece of solid working guidance to be applied by trained professional planners and elected politicians when considering applications for planning permission. (Actually there are many other more detailed Policy Statements on specific topics, but textual analysis usually shows the extra detail to be illusory.)

In summary therefore, whatever its practitioners think they are, the political objectives of the UK planning system seem vague, ill defined and largely unhelpful to any citizen seeking enlightenment about why the state takes such enormous powers over private property. I say this as a former practitioner!

I'll come back to this in a future post, with a more pragmatic take on why planning exists and a look at possible alternative ways of trying to achieve those same ends. 

In case you are wondering about the title, it comes from thinking about the vast range of activities considered to be 'development', which therefore fall within the ambit of the planning system and require planning permission from the local council.

Climategate revisited

Now that the main charges of scientific misconduct arising from the hacking of the University of East Anglia email system have been proven false, it’s possible to get a reasonably clear idea of what actually happened here. For once the widely used “X-gate” terminology is appropriate. As with Watergate, the central incident was a “third-rate burglary” conducted as part of a campaign of overt and covert harassment directed against political opponents and rewarded (at least in the short run) with political success.

via crookedtimber.org

Pascal's Wager and climate change

I'm fairly sure that there isn't a god. But if you met me on a crashing plane, I'd probably be on my knees doing a decade-of-the-rosary every couple of seconds.

And for those of us that don't have to capacity to understand the science around man-made global warming, I think that there's a similar Pascal's Wager type approach that we could adopt.

via nevertrustahippy.blogspot.com

Fuel Efficient Cars - Biodiesel - Hybrids

Motorhead Messiah

Johnathan Goodwin can get 100 mpg out of a Lincoln Continental, cut emissions by 80%, and double the horsepower. Does the car business have the guts to follow him?

I used to think the stories of the car industry suppressing innovation were only for the tin foil hat brigade, but this guy seems to be able to achieve amazing things - like a Hummer that can get 60 miles to the gallon and do zero to 60 in five seconds! Of course turning what he does into production engineering will be something else. We will also need to do something about the stupid tax regime that stops us using recycled cooking oil without paying tax as if it was pure fuel oil.

More on fairs and festivals

Some time ago, (2003 in fact!) I posted asking for information about the economic impact of markets fairs and festivals. Some time later, (2006) I made a separate post about so-called Anti-Social Behaviour, that touched in passing on a phenomenon known as Charivari. I was intrigued therefore to discover a research project at City University in London, that focussed on economic outcomes from such events, but in one of the academic papers linked also to some of those other ideas inherent in Charivari.

Throughout the academic literature, carnivals and festivals are associated – by historians and anthropologists alike – with altered social forms, excitement, even danger. Opinion is divided over whether the carnival is a locus for radical transgression, or simply an escape valve for revolutionary energy, which acts to reinforce the status quo (Cohen 1993; Waterman 1998; Webb 2005). Either way, attention is drawn to the tendency for popular festivals and carnivals, in many parts of the world, and in many historical periods, to be characterised by risqué reversals of hierarchy, ludic mimicry, flamboyant and celebratory cultural expression, and a sanctioned overstepping of conventional rules and norms of behaviour. Arguably, carnival is also associated with spontaneity, and with a sense of being carried away by the momentum of the event through improvised action and kinetic excitement. Although many carnival arts involve meticulous attention to form, structure, even ritual, there remains a strong feeling that participation is more than can be conveyed through an account of moves, music and costume. The element of risk, of unpredictability – not, in any sense, of anarchy, but of an altered understanding of authority, whether actual or imagined – is at the heart of the experience of carnival.

There are also links here with the idea of the feast of the  Lord of Misrule

This is misnamed a feast, being full of annoyance; since going out-of-doors is burdensome, and staying within doors is not undisturbed. For the common vagrants and the jugglers of the stage, dividing themselves into squads and hordes, hang about every house. The gates of public officials they besiege with especial persistence, actually shouting and clapping their hands until he that is beleaguered within, exhausted, throws out to them whatever money he has and even what is not his own. And these mendicants going from door to door follow one after another, and, until late in the evening, there is no relief from this nuisance. For crowd succeeds crowd, and shout, shout, and loss, loss.

This fear of the reversal of power, of disturbance of the common good runs deep. After all, we can't have public officials made fun of can we?

Look around you

There is a view of art that places it at the top of human endeavours, represented I suppose by people like Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, Van Gogh, Rembrandt. However the existence of such elevated work does not invalidate art produced by us lesser mortals.

Oscar Wilde is supposed to have said, in response to a question about why America had such high levels of violence, “because you have such awful wallpaper”. This seemingly flippant response masks an essential truth, enumerated recently on TV by Stephen Fry, that we seem to be the only species able to make the place uglier by our efforts. Not everything we do of course – I think the sublime qualities of the English countryside must surely count as one of the greatest artistic achievements of all time.

Nevertheless, the environment we create for ourselves is often impoverished and at worst downright ugly - even unhealthy. We know as a race we can do better.  The challenge is to create the conditions in which that can happen. Artists surely have a part to play and while a 21st Century Michaelangelo would be nice we can't rely on that so it will depend on all of us to raise our sights - at least occasionally - from the cashbook to the world around us.