Quote of the day

Good news for those who support ethanol production as a means to reduce greenhouse gasses. You can get a beautiful mahogany table and chairs set, made from rainforest land converted to farmland to grow crops for ethanol.

 Jason Jones at the ASI.

Gordon Ramsay says "Africans are expendable"

Quite why the BBC thinks the opinions of a footballer-turned-cook are of any great interest is beyond me, but they are reporting today that Mr Ramsay wants to ban out of season produce from restaurants. And he has been telling Gordon Brown so as well.

I'm probably becoming a bit of a stuck record on this subject, but it's hard to know what else to do in the face of a never-ending barrage of demands to ban imported food.

So here we go again. If we ban out of season food then people in Africa and Chile are going to be out of jobs and that may well mean starving.

Just because you can't see them Gordon, doesn't mean they can be flung on the scrapheap without a second thought.

An argument, by Carolyn Fry

• Imported flowers have large carbon footprints.
• So don't buy imported flowers.
• But wait! Africans depend on the flower trade! They'll starve!
  
• The flower trade uses toxic chemicals too.
• Oh! We can probably do without the Africans in that case.

(From the Guardian, a couple of weeks back.)

Fringe science

An "academic" called Tom Wakeford is given space in the Guardian today to sound off about the food crisis. This being the Guardian, Dr Wakeford is, of course, quite howling mad and seizes his opportunity to prove it in spectacular fashion.

Dr Wakeford is "Director of Co-Inquiry of PEALS" which, for the unenlightened, stands for Policy, Ethics And Life Sciences. It appears to be a research institution of some kind, although quite what it is for and what, if anything, its staff do is not entirely clear from its website. My guess would be that it keeps a few eggheads off the dole queue.

Dr W is also director of the Durham-Newcastle Beacon for Public Engagement, which is

a major new initiative to make universities more welcoming and accessible, and to deepen the social impact and relevance of their work. 

If it's social impact you're after, I'd recommend doing something that people actually want. While I'm sure that Dr Wakeford's Prajateerpu, power and knowledge: The politics of participatory action research in development. Part 2. Analysis, reflections and implications is a profound publication, and probably a page-turner to boot, I'm not sure it's actually providing something that is ever going to have much social impact. Regrettably, we'll probably never know, as the link Dr W provides to the article is now pointing at a dead web domain. This does kind of prove my point though.

Anyway, enough of the good doctor himself, what about his ideas for saving the world? Well, first up, biotechnology is a no-no. According to our man, an international body called the IAASTD have recently said that

data on some GM crops indicate highly variable yield gains in some places and declines in others.

Now he's actually been a naughty boy and "improved" the quote slightly for public consumption. The actual report is here:

For example, data based on some years and some GM crops indicate highly variable 10-33% yield gains in some places and yield declines in others. 

Which doesn't give quite the same impression, does it? Some years, and some crops aren't too good. Sounds like ordinary crops to me. Regardless, he would seem to want us to believe that farmers are moving over to GM all round the world, in the face of uncertain or even falling yields, which when you think about it, is rather amazing. Unfortunately he doesn't tell us why he believes something so unlikely.

He goes on to quote a charity's comments on the same report. According to Dr W, Practical Action (for whom he has written articles in the past) says:

 [T]he report rightly concludes that small-scale farmers and ecological methods provide the way forward to avert the current food crisis.

And again, this is odd, because I can't find anything like this in the report itself. In the part about food security, the IAASTD says this: 

Policy options for addressing food security include developing high-value and under-utilized crops in rain fed areas; increasing the full range of agricultural exports and imports, including organic and fair trade products; reducing transaction costs for small-scale producers; strengthening local markets; food safety nets; promoting agro-insurance; and improving food safety and quality. 

Which is nothing like what Dr W says it says. Perhaps this is a case of Chinese whispers? Even then, if Dr W believes that small-scale farms and organic produce is going to feed the world (and perhaps fuel it too) then it's another startling argument to make; one that would seem to put Dr W well and truly in the category of "swivel-eyed lunatic".

But let's return to Dr W's arguments. He sets about giving a good slapping to anyone who might disagree with him. Arguments that GM crops will feed the world are "preposterous", apparently. (Having read his earlier comments, one can't help but get the feeling that when a madman tells you your ideas are crazy, you're probably on the right track.) A few figures to back his case up might have convinced some of the naysayers, but hey, I'm just a humble blogger and Dr W represents the full academic majesty of the University of Newcastle, so perhaps little details like accuracy and evidence are old fashioned social constructs and can be dispensed with by the illuminati.

His other target is a group called Sense about Science, which is apparently a "deficit fringe group". I'm not sure what that means, but I don't think it's meant to be nice. Dr W thinks that the Funding Councils shouldn't have supported such nonsense. I'm sure he's right. The money would surely have been much better spent on making universities "more welcoming and accessible" via Dr W's Beacon for Public Engagement. (Perhaps they could let the public into the student bars?) Actually, Sense about Science appears to be doing something similar to what Dr W is doing with his Beacon, but they seem to have reached different conclusions on the wisdom of GM. In fact I wonder if Dr W's article is just an exercise in Beacon-waving for the benefit of the Funding Councils - "fund me, not them!".

But anyway, who do you think is the fringe here? The panel of scientists? Or the man who doesn't check his sources, and who thinks that organic farms and smallholdings are the way forward for agriculture? 

Hard call, isn't it? 

Tesco puts carbon footprint on products

Tesco is to test putting "carbon labels" on its own-brand products next month in a move to enable consumers to choose products which are less damaging to the environment.

The retailer will put carbon-count labels on varieties of orange juice, potatoes, energy-efficient light bulbs and washing detergent, stating the quantity in grammes of CO2 equivalent put into the atmosphere by their manufacture and distribution.

(Source: Graun) 

I suppose we should applaud the provision of extra information, but I'm not convinced that this is going to have beneficial effects. The carbon footprint is a crude measure of one element of something's environmental impact. But us environmentally concerned consumers don't just worry about carbon do we? (Yes, OK, I don't worry about it very much, but bear with me). We also worry about things like rainforests, and wild places and things like that. It has been suggestsed that we should measure the impact of a product on land usage using food prints.

The problem with the Tesco scheme is that consumers will be encouraged to focus only on the carbon footprint. So if it's successful it will tend to promote schemes which don't use much energy but which use vast acres of land.

This probably wasn't the intention though. 

Monbiot calls for the end of organic farming

Not in so many words, of course, but let me explain.... 

There are few subjects on which George Monbiot is on the clever side of absolutely barking, but he worked out a long time ago that biofuels are not a good idea and he has been diligent in putting this message across.

In today's Guardian he revisits the subject of food shortages and he has some interesting statistics on where the grain harvest is going to:

At 2.1bn tonnes, the global grain harvest broke all records last year - it beat the previous year's by almost 5%. The crisis, in other words, has begun before world food supplies are hit by climate change. If hunger can strike now, what will happen if harvests decline?

There is plenty of food. It is just not reaching human stomachs. Of the 2.13bn tonnes likely to be consumed this year, only 1.01bn, according to the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organisation, will feed people.

I am sorely tempted to write another column about biofuels. From this morning all sellers of transport fuel in the United Kingdom will be obliged to mix it with ethanol or biodiesel made from crops. The World Bank points out that "the grain required to fill the tank of a sports utility vehicle with ethanol ... could feed one person for a year". This year global stockpiles of cereals will decline by around 53m tonnes; this gives you a rough idea of the size of the hunger gap. The production of biofuels will consume almost 100m tonnes, which suggests that they are directly responsible for the current crisis.

This is interesting because it completely kills the argument that the crisis has been caused by crop failures (inevitably, "linked to climate change"). It's biofuels that are the problem. All good stuff.

So what are we going to do about it? George has the answer for us. It comes in two parts:

[W]e must demand that our governments scrap the rules that turn grain into the fastest food of all [biofuels]. 

No George, for the umpteenth time, the government can't do a thing. They must plead with the EU for a change in policy. They can do nothing unilaterally. So shame on you for avoiding the subject.

And the other? It will come as no surprise to hear that George wants to change people's behaviour. It's all our fault, you see. George's  reckons we should eat less meat. Does it occur to him that meat is only one of the products we get from the carcass of a cow or a sheep? Leather anyone? Wool? Gelatine?

And here's a question George. What are all those lovely organic farms you so favour going to fertilise their fields with, if not a by-product of the meat-raising process?

Elephant in room!

Alastair Darling wants a review of international biofuels programmes, and has called on the World Bank to write a report. Cor.

Perhaps he would do better to plead with Senor Barroso, the man responsible for enforcing biofuels use in the UK? 

More on Jo Abbess

A commenter on the previous post suggests that climate activist Jo Abbess is a "fascist bitch". I don't think so, actually. If you Google her name she makes some revealing contributions to a thread on Comment is Free which show that she is something much less sinister.

Like this one 

The new thinking has to be something like this :-
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
The only way we make it out of here alive is if we believe, and act as if
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies.

 Or this one

Love, children, love. It's not *all* you need, but it's a start 

I mean, far out man! But is our Jo a complete space cadet or has she got some more earth-bound opinions? Of course she has - she does political opinion too. Here's her opinions on Tony Blair:

he is in reality a sensitive, spiritual family man, navigating the tightrope of public presence with a skill that should make you marvel. he hit the water running, remember.

One can but wonder what it was that our Jo hit, but I think we can be sure that it's not the water. It seems plain to me that "misguided space cadet" is probably a better description than "fascist bitch".

All the same, it's a remarkable set of comments, revealing of the deep, incisive intelligence that was able to get the logical colossus that is the BBC's Roger Harrabin to roll over and beg to have his tummy tickled. 

First victims of the greens

Media attention is finally starting to focus on the implications of the drive for biofuels.

The Observer worries if food riots will be sparked by the continuing rises in rice prices.

Food riots fear after rice price hits a high

Shortages of the staple crop of half the world's people could bring unrest across Asia and Africa, reports foreign affairs editor Peter Beaumont

Mr Beaumont clearly has his finger somewhere other than on the pulse because AFP is reporting that the trouble has already started:

Forty people died during price riots in Cameroon in February, there has also been deadly troubles in Ivory Coast and Mauritania and other violent demonstrations in Senegal and Burkina Faso -- where a nationwide strike against price rises is to start Tuesday.

The trouble is not limited to these countries either. In Egypt, there have been outbreaks of violence in bread queues, with as many as seven people dying. We've also seen unrest in Mexico and Argentina.

The deaths of so many poor people is sad enough, but when it's all so unnecessary it's doubly depressing. Whatever your views on global warming, grain-based ethanol was never going to be part of the answer. Using all of your agricultural land to provide a fraction of your fuel needs is so plainly barmy that anyone except an green or a politician would reject it out of hand.

It's unforgiveable. The fact of the deaths caused by their religion should be rammed down the throats of green activists and politicians every time they dare to put their heads above the parapet.     

Coal

Thought for the day:

Greens are calling for a moratorium on new coal fired power stations. Would they have still been making these demands if we still had a mining industry? 

Any lawyers out there?

Via here, I found this article in the Guardian by Dr Simon Lewis, who is a geographer working in the field of biodiversity.

In April last year a group of environmentalists shut down E.ON's coalfired power station in Ratcliffe-on-Soar. The goal: to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and, in their words, "save lives". Yesterday judge Morris Cooper presented a 20-page judgment accepting there was an "urgent need for drastic action", but convicted them of aggravated trespass, saying their defence, that their crime was necessary to save lives, could not be substantiated.

In the trial, for which I was an expert witness, crucial questions were how many people does climate change kill, and what proportion is the UK responsible for? I was surprised to discover that nobody knows.

This is a surprising thing to say, firstly because it's patently obvious that nobody knows - how could they? But secondly, if he had to go away and find out the answers to these questions it rather suggests that he's not actually an expert at all. Dr Lewis, as I've mentioned is an ecologist, not an epidemiologist. It makes the court system look rather silly to call someone as an expert on one thing whose expertise is in something completely different. 

So my first question for lawyers is this: do UK expert witnesses actually have to demonstrate some expertise in the relevant field? Or can the defence just put up some random green with letters after their name?

There's more about the trial here - this appears to be a site run by one of the defendants or perhaps one of their supporters. What intrigued me were the notes of Dr Lewis's testimony, and in particular this:

defence lawyer:  IPCC reports, how are they viewed in the scientific community?

 [Dr Lewis] IPCC - a consensus document, made up of thousands of scientists' reviews of the literature. That no scientist holding a position in an academic university who disagrees with on record.

Now this statement, as set out here, is manifestly untrue. Richard Lindzen, anyone? Professor of Meteorology at MIT? From his Wikipedia page:

Lindzen stated that "there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them" and "I cannot stress this enough -- we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost nothing relevant to policy discussions."

So my second question for any lawyers reading is this: if Dr Lewis gave evidence along the lines of the statements attributed to him above, has he committed perjury?

And question three is this: can anyone lay their hands on a copy of the trial transcript?.   

Tesco good, M&S bad

M&S have said they're going to selflessly charge us for plastic bags. Tesco have said they're not.

When I want my supermarket to make ethical decisions for me, I'll ask them to do so. In the meantime, I choose Tesco.

Disingenuous greens

The Green Alliance have issued a report calling for VAT to be replaced with a green goods tax.

Julie Hill, Green Alliance’s waste policy expert, says:

“We have a choice: do we want to continue living with stuff which conflicts with living a low-carbon, low-waste lifestyle or do we want to consume in ways that are smart, pleasurable and sustainable? The market still brings forward products that conflict with the government’s own environmental goals, from appliances that can’t be taken off stand-by to packaging that can’t be recycled. And without the right price signals this pattern is set to continue. Other European countries do it so let’s tax bads  - not goods.”

What Julie Hill neglects to say is that this can't actually be done, because VAT is compulsory under EU law. She does actually know about this flaw in her little plan, because it says so in the full report. She just accidentally forgot to mention it in the press release, I suppose. 

What is it about the name "Prescott"?

Lots of traffic coming my way as a result of the "E-day" post. Welcome to everyone who's visiting here for the first time.

While researching the background to E-day, I came across a curious fact: there are lots of Matt Prescotts involved in greenish politics.

We've already met Matt Prescott, PhD (Oxon) in Ecology, head of Ban the Bulb, Planet Relief and E-Day.

Then there's Matt Prescott who runs Carbon Limited, a project trying to make Carbon Communism Personal Carbon Allowances a workable idea. 

And there's a third Matt Prescott who is a spokesman for PETA.

As far as I can tell, these are all entirely different people, but they're all involved in enviroloony causes. 

But I suppose I might go off the rails too, if I shared a name with our former Deputy Prime Minister. 

Environmentalists trashing the environment 3

They're coming thick and fast now.

The government's going to ban plastic bags, despite its own advisers telling it that this will make the situation worse!

Idiots.