Entries from April 1, 2008 - May 1, 2008
Bishop Hill
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?
Leave a Comment
Someone called Philip Inman is gracing the pages of Comment is Free, where he sets out his ideas for how to deal with the pensions timebomb.
You'd think that a simple recognition that the problem has been caused by Gordon Brown taxing people too heavily and spending the proceeds on bureaucrats and dole queues and generally throwing money to the four winds would be enough to lead a relatively intelligent person to the correct conclusions. Namely that we should stop throwing money to the four winds and stop taxing people so heavily.
Alas, Mr Inman is no such person. His solution:
The only hope lies in educating all workers about how poor their retirement will be and how they can push their employer and the government to provide more and on a more equal basis.
Yes folks, the answer to a problem caused by high taxes is more taxes.
Idiot.
A LibDem MEP called Chris Davies bemoans his colleagues decision to hide the EU Auditors' report on the Union's finances over on Comment is Free.
"Taxpayers could be forgiven for believing that there are more honest people to be found in prison than sit in the European parliament." This was my comment after MEPs voted on Tuesday by majorities of more than 2:1 to prevent publication of auditors' reports that reveal the flagrant misuse of public money by some.
All very commendable, I'm sure, particularly as Mr Davies appears to have put himself in the firing line by standing up in this way. It's probably just as well that he's an elected representative though. If he were a humble (or even a not-so-humble) eurocrat he would have found himself out on his ear long before this.
It's amazing how the political classes keep up their support for the EU in the face of every scandal, every destructive regulation, every cock-eyed directive that emerges from the doors of the EU edifice. I never understand how the LibDems can bring themselves to join the happy throng singing the praises of the supranational joys of rule from Brussels.
Whichever way you look at it, Brussels is delivering the opposite of liberalism. For the LibDems to support it makes no sense. Brussels gives us centralised government and big government. Really big. This is supersized government with extra fries and a stonking great tub of lard to dip them in. All served up in a gilded trough that will tickle the fancy of even the most discerning snout.
"But don't worry!", say the LibDems. "The EU will change. We are working to change it.They are coming round to our way of doing things."
And what about the corruption? As Mr Davies failed to point out, the EU auditors have now refused to sign off the Union's accounts for thirteen years on the trot. "Ah, but the corruption is taking place in member states", say the LibDems. "Don't worry, they'll change. We're working hard on it."
And the lunacy of EU governance. What about that? The Common Agricultural Policy, The Common Fisheries Policy, The Reach directive, The Biofuels Obligation? "Don't worry. They'll see things our way soon", say the LibDems. "There are new faces in European capitals. An opportunity is coming to change the EU for the better."
After all these years, and with what? nothing to show for the LibDems' persuasive powers at all? it all rings rather hollow, wouldn't you say?
Well, not on this day exactly, but roughly five years ago on 14th April 2003, David Milliband launched an all-out attack on red tape in schools:
The Government will continue its concerted attack on teacher workloads today, by launching the first-ever independent scrutiny unit made up of frontline teachers, to cut red tape and free schools of bureaucracy.
The Implementation Review Unit (IRU) is a key component of implementing the national workforce agreement and will tackle unnecessary paper work, assess workload implications and reduce bureaucratic processes. It shows the continued progress and delivery by signatories to reduce workloads and help teachers focus on improving pupil learning.
I wonder what they've been up to in the last five years? Let's take a peek at their website shall we?
Oh look, there's a news section! That will tell us.
And the news is:
"No news items have been posted yet".
I wonder when they're going to actually, you know, do something useful?
If it moves, tax it.......
2001: Banks threatened with windfall tax
If it keeps moving, regulate it.
2007: The system of bank regulation introduced by Gordon Brown was yesterday branded an “invitation to disaster” even before the run on Northern Rock.
And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
2008: Government plans to help UK banks
is
Huge
His itinerary goes like this:
May 4, 2008--Ohio
May 3, 2008--Philadelphia
April 15, 2008--Geneva
April 11, 2008--San Francisco
April 8, 2008--Iceland
April 5, 2008--Montreal
March 18, 2008--New York
March 15, 2008--India
March 12, 2008--Poland
March 11, 2008--Geneva
March 1, 2008--Monterey, California
February 14, 2008--New York City
January 31, 2008--Atlanta
January 24, 2008--Switzerland
January 19, 2008--Park City, Utah
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.
Lucia Liljegren is formulating a new scale for measuring how hot you think things are going to get. Lucia comes in as a lukewarmer. James Hansen is presumably a Hell fire and brimstone warmer. Make your suggestions here.
It is sometimes said that these days, the cops, or at least some of them, are the "paramilitary wing of the Guardian newspaper". This represents a significant shift in the cultural/political standing of the police over my lifetime.
Jonathan Pearce looks at UK policing.
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?