I’ve just been at an interesting lecture by Mark Lynas, run by the WWF as part of Edinburgh’s International Science Festival. The talk was titled ‘The End of the World by Degrees’, and charted how the global climate and ecosystems would change – and get progressively less hospitable for life – as the average global temperature rose, one degree at a time.
What was interesting was how the human disaster unfolded, not so much through a single catastrophe that wipes out millions of people in a single event, but how much the systems upon which our economies are based are slowly undermined. Rivers will dry up along with any industry based upon them, for example. The insurance market will slowly decline as flooding destroys property. The rest of the financial system crumbles soon after.
Although the subject of the talk was what happens if temperatures continue to rise, the commentary from the audience was of course all about politics, and forcing a downward trend in CO2 emmissions. Mark’s suggestion was that we should treat the ecological crisis as something akin to war, where people have to remain stoical despite (carbon) rationing, and the nature of the economy is drastically altered in order to mobilise the change. How much more positive than our current ‘War on Terror’.
Also telling is how much of the problem comes from what I can only describe as human stupidity, the inability to see past the end of one’s own nose. The fact that people still need to be told to conserve energy, for example by buying energy saving lightbulbs, is a case in point. The bulbs save you money even in the short term: How come everyone doesn’t have them? That we depend so much on oil (expensive, under the ground, in foreign countries) when we could generate a vast amount of energey from the sun, wind and water, is quite ridiculous. If it is impractical to create the infrastructure via the market alone, then surely the government needs to change the market – if only temporarily – to ensure this stupidity comes to an end.
Mark’s ‘state of emergency’ idea holds a certain fascination for me in this case (although I know that is a classic tactic of a proto-totalitarian state: everyone believes they would make a wonderful benevolent dictator). He made the point that carbon-rationing (Domestic Tradable Quotas) would actually have the effect of making many people, especially the poor, better off. Co-operation within the community to produce food (rather than buying it from Tesco) and travelling on foot and bicycle means heathier people living in a friendlier community. Strangely, a more local outlook could help on a global scale.
A bleaker point came from a member of the audience, who outed the elephant in the room: Humans are the problem. Although the current unprecedented rise in average temperatures would eventually destroy the human race, the earth as a life-bearing planet would persist and survive. Ice-ages and the melting of the ice-caps is nothing new, geologically speaking.
Page 302 of 328
I was interested to hear Rabbi Dan Cohn-Sherbok on BBC Radio 4’s Start The Week yesterday, claiming that there exists a Paradox of anti-Semitism, in which the very fact of persecution has meant that Jewish people have grouped together to preserve their culture, something they may not have otherwise done.
He makes an interesting point, but I was not convinced that he is not simply stating a truism, or a solopsim, or both. To what extent is contemporary Jewish identity shaped by the Holocaust? if those events have now become a part of the Jewish culture or narrative then that does not mean that Judaism required a Holocaust in order to become whole.
1. Jewish culture is valuable;
2. Jewish culture includes a Holocaust; therefore
3. The Holocaust is valuable.
I’m pretty sure the logic is flawed there. Simply because Jewish identity was strengthened among those who avoided persecution, that does not mean that an alternative would not also have been strong. Indeed, one tragedy of the genocide is the lament for the ‘lost culture,’ the one that would have manifested itself had the Nazis not have perpetrated their evil.
On a related point, a friend of mine commented recently that the attacks of 11th September 2001 have made the world a more politicised place, with more people engaging in politics and in political dialogue. As a catalyst for this, 9/11 would therefore be a positive thing!
Again, I’m not sure one event can take credit for this politicisation, and in any case, the nature of politics is surely related to the idea of change… a response to events, a human desire to make things different. How big does the silver lining have to be, in order for us to tolerate the rain-cloud? In the case of the Holocaust, surely the cloud is so big and offensive, no amount silver-lining could cause any kind of ethical dilemma that Dan Cohn-Sherbok dubs a ‘paradox’.
I have yet to read the book however, so perhaps I am being a reactionary, psyco-analysing the book’s four word title.
The same friend cited the rise in people motivated to write a blog, as a manifestation of this increased politicisation. I wonder how other bloggers feel about this? To what extent have world events motivated them to write? How would political blogging be different if 9/11 had not happened? Would we have asked the same questions?
Another entry in my occassional photo-blog series, chronicling preposterous headlines in the press. I spotted the following headline in today’s Metro newspaper, Scottish central-belt edition.
Apparently, Scottish captain and football pundit Barry Ferguson has been opining on how Tommy Burns, the assistant coach for the national team, will fare in his latest challenge.
Barry backs Burns to beat skin cancer
Fantastic alliteration… but otherwise totally crazy. As the photo shows, the story is at the back of the newspaper, on the sports pages. Should we act on Barry’s tip, and place a bet? Ferguson’s extensive medical knowledge is evident in these choice quotes:
‘He is a great guy and everyone gets on well with him … I’ve not had the best of seasons, but Tommy told me recently that I’m a good enough player to get through this. Little things like that mean a lot – and show that Tommy’s a top man.’
That’s good to know, since only miserable bastards actually die of cancer. The ‘top men’ always pull through… Is it really the job of tabloid newspapers to boost the morale of football fans in this dishonest manner?
CuriousHamster has been musing about ID cards again, as peers continue to argue with the government over whether the cards will truly be ‘voluntary’, if citizens are required to register for one when they renew their passport. He gives the dictionary definition of ‘voluntary’, but neglects to make an important point about the definition. If you do something voluntarily, then you are under no obligation to continue to do it, if you should change your mind. I am on the Organ Donor Register, but I could ring them up and remove my details if I wanted to.
But ministers say [ID Cards] will already be “voluntary”, because it is not compulsory to have a passport.
True, it is not compulsory to have a passport (at least, unless you work for the Foreign Office), and I can hand mine back to the issuing agency, the UKPA, at any time I choose. Since ID cards will be also be ‘voluntary’, I therefore presume I will be able to return mine to the Home Office, when it arrives along with my renewed, biometric passport…
Tim Ireland at Bloggerheads makes a much quoted appeal to oust Tony Blair from power.
For the good of the Labour Party, for the good of the country, and for the good of the whole bloody world, Tony Blair must not leave Downing St voluntarily… and if he does, he must be forced to resign in shame.
Tim itemises the transgressions of the Blair administration, following the lead of Chicken Yoghurt, earlier in the week. The message is similar in both cases: We are going too far down an authoritarian road, and it is up to us to take a stand, and make it stop. And moreover: How have we let it come this far? Why hasn’t Blair been ejected?
Criticising Blair and everything he stands for has become a noble art. For those of us still angry over major abuses of power, it would be galling if he resigned over some trifle, some minor scandal. The same is true for George W Bush: That the Republicans may lose the Congressional Mid-Terms over the Dubai Port Scandal is something of an insult. How come a benign administration issue destroys so much political capital, while torture seems to barely register, and might even be a vote winner (via Daily Dish).
It is in the concept of ‘Political Capital’, and indeed Blair’s own “Hisotry Will Judge Me” comments, that I find some succour in these depressing times. He began his time in office with an astonishing amount of ‘Political Capital’ to spend. Each scandal of the Blair administration (remember Peter Mandelson resigning twice, remember how 9/11 was a good day to “bury bad news”, remember Stephen Byers’ ministerial career) eroded that capital. Each act of hypocrisy, each doublethink declaration that someone has acted with propriety, erodes that capital. Each disgraceful statement from Charles Clarke that we deride, ensures another voter, and more importantly, another political ally, distances themselves administration. As Labour’s political capital is consumed, Blair’s personal support wanes. It is beginning to look like he can no longer govern.
There is a lag in politics that surpasses anything that the economists may be able to calculate. Events that happen today have an effect many years down the line. The protests against Blair’s policies in 2003 – indeed, all the criticisms since 1997 – may not have achieved their stated aims, but they had an effect that we only begin to perceive now. They were not pointless, they did not fail. Blair was not ejected from power in last year’s election, but he was crippled, fatally wounded. He cannot run the country properly, because he no longer has the majority to push through the reforms he planned.
someone has to be called to account or the next batch of power-mad bastards – here or abroad – will think they can get away with exactly the same thing.
It may appear as if Blair is not being called to account. When he goes, it will indeed be over some small matter. It will be even more irritating for those of us who were annoyed by the big things. But make no mistake, when he resigns, Nick Robinson and the rest will say: “It was about time.” Blair’s departure from the field will not be to the applause of a cup-winner, but the collective sigh of relief as a poorly performing striker is substituted, early. He may announce his own resignation, but history will chronicle an incomplete Premiership, a job half-done. Let us hope that this example of potential wasted, greatness squandered, will serve as a lesson to all future leaders.