Refugees and illusions

Some reflections on the refugee crisis.  I will write a few posts on this.

Standing in 38 degrees heat at the Deli station in Budapest surrounded by 20 Pakistani migrants can get you thinking about stuff.  You put two and two together and note that drought in Nigeria played into the hands of Boko Harem, and the 2006-2011drought in Syria caused 1.5 million farmers to move to the cities, which led to the civil war and the displacement of something like 7 million people.  So if you are interested in climate change, you inevitably have to think about refugees and migration and then practically everything comes to mind: home, culture, identity, defence, religion, technology, food, agriculture, environment, wildlife and so forth.  It’s one big thing the Earth.

I am pretty conservative in that I like my little spot, my place.  Although I am not religious I still like religion.  I have my favourite football team and feel anxiety when they lose and joy when they win.  I like traditions for their own sake as long as they are not cruel or wasteful.  I like the old and ancient, and I am wary of change.  I like some concept of “England” and “Englishness”, although I like it less and less over time.  But I am still conservative enough to understand where conservative people are coming from when they bristle about immigrants and multi-culturalism.

I had dinner with a very enlightened, young American friend.  He grew up in a small rural, mining village in the States and then discovered Europe and environmentalism.  So he has a broad view of things.  He asked me:

“What is it about your culture that is so special to you?”

I had to think about this.  Some of the things seemed superficial: Football at 3pm on Saturdays, the pubs and beers. Some were physical or visual things: the lovely countryside, the many beautiful buildings, the harmony of rural architecture. Some were deeper: the way people in the village where I grew up rally round when someone is ill or needs help; the still strong sense of civic duty and the amount of charitable activity; the kindness of our neighbours in Shrewsbury; the fact that you can generally feel you can trust someone; the way people smile more readily than, say, in grumpy Hungary.

Then he asked: “So is that culture more important to you than the even more fundamental question of being kind to fellow humans?”  A conservative might want to protect his culture, but is the culture really worth more than humanity?

This argument only goes so far.  Yes, a shared culture is, at one level, an aesthetic construct, and a nice-to-have.  But it also has a vital functional role: it facilitates co-operation between people; unspoken rules allow us to short-cut the stifling bureaucracy of law and regulation.  I think a well-working society needs a strong shared culture.

Then it dawned on me: I perceived the first few decades of my life to be a time of relative peace and prosperity.  Somehow it made me think that a well-working society was within reach; a few tweaks away: a couple of TED talks, a few correcting laws or a couple of advances in technology.

Now I no longer think that.  If there was a chance, it has slipped away, and it was probably an illusion anyway.  Why would things happen to click just now?  Ecological crisis, war and extremism, the doubling of the world population since 1970 mean to me that a well-working society is now just a dream.  There are still little islands of peace and prosperity like Scandinavia – less than 20 million people -, but the general rule is that there are too many people, too little education, too much upheaval, too much ego and conflicting aspirations and too few resources for many to have a well-working society at the moment.  Technology or population collapse might change that, but at the moment it is a vain dream.

It is good to recognise this.  If I realise that the Country Living idyll is no longer within reach, then I can reset my expectations.  And then, when setting those expectations, I can assume that flux and jumbled-up-ness will be the norm for some time.  The Country Living dream is dead.  Reality is hot railway stations in Budapest with beggars, commuters, refugees, angry toilet attendants, bored policemen, tired volunteers, more weary refugees, homeless men, hot and sticky, desperate for a shower, a kind grocer, officious ticket inspectors, and still more refugees in an inexorable stream.  Mistakes were made and we pay the price.

Posted in Environment, society, politics and economics | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The dangers behind averages.

2 degrees has become a familiar figure.  We need to stop the climate getting warmer than an average of 2 degrees to avoid catastrophic climate change.  In fact, as top climate scientist James Hansen says, even 2 degrees is too high.  He says bluntly: “It’s crazy to think that 2 degrees celsius is a safe limit,” (http://climatecrocks.com/2015/05/05/james-hansen-2-degrees-is-a-recipe-for-disaster/)

I would go further, and you don’t need to be a scientist to figure it out: it is crazy using an average figure to drive policy.  I think an average hides too much important data – highs and lows which are more dangerous to us.  By focusing on the average we are ignoring some important truths and therefore risk making bad decisions.

An average of 2°C means just that: you take lots of temperatures all over the world’s surface during the year and then divide it by the number of readings.

The other day temperatures in Iran hit 52°C and with such humidity that it “felt like” 73°C.  These are some of the hottest temperatures ever known to man. http://www.euronews.com/2015/08/04/iran-sizzles-in-some-of-the-hottest-temperatures-ever-known-to-humankind/

Yet according to Weather Online, in Iran “January is the coldest month, with temperatures from 5°C to 10°C, and August is the hottest month at 20°C to 30°C or more.”  There is an average annual temperature of around 18°C.

This just shows how an average can hide bad news: average temperature of 18°C; say it grows to 20°C.  Sounds nice.  But the trouble is that means over 50 degrees for some days in August.

Why does it matter?

This year research was showed how the hand of climate change is behind the drought of 2006 to 2009 and that is one of the causes of the war which started in 2011: The drought was “one of the worst in modern times”   http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/science/earth/study-links-syria-conflict-to-drought-caused-by-climate-change.html?_r=0   The arrival of 1.5 million impoverished rural people to the cities added to the social stresses which led to the civil war.  From there came the inflagration we know and the emergence of Islamic State as a regional force.

As a result of that several hundred thousand refugees have arrived in Europe (100,000 have come through Hungary) seeking safety.  This has led to a political crisis in Europe, fed extremism, interrupted trade and caused panicky policy-making.  That’s just Syria.  What about crop failure in Pakistan, India, Iran and Iraq?  What happens when the Himalayas dry out (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/27/most-glaciers-in-mount-everest-area-will-disappear-with-climate-change-study) and the monsoon fails once or twice?

This highlights two key factors which averages ignore.

First, for many things extremes are much more salient: a very hot summer can destroy crops, even if the autumn and winter are cold.  A wet spring might be irrelevant if there is no rain from June to August.  So it is not interesting what the average temperature rise in the Middle East is.  What is interesting is the changes which affect the thing most at risk – in this case drought and farms.

Second, history is not smooth.  There are sudden events which then lead to other events and then things escalate.  You don’t need a whole year of slightly warmer weather to cause problems.  You need a few days of intolerable heat for people to start doing things which have irrevocable consequences.  A riot, a few deaths in one city can mushroom into regional war – consider the way World War 1 was initiated by a single shot in Sarajevo.  Psychologists recognise that hotter temperatures can cause increased levels of aggression and violence (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-psyched/201307/global-warming-can-also-increase-aggression-and-violence).  When temperatures peak, violence can happen.  Depending on the circumstances, the violence can spread.  The peak, not the average, counts here.

From the example in Syria a period of drought in one limited region can have international repercussions – affecting the human species more than any other!

For this reason, in discussion about climate change, we should not just talk about averages.  They risk hiding far too much critical information.  We should identify some main vulnerable areas (in terms of political geography, vulnerable eco-systems) and consider which weather conditions constitute systemic threats.  We must look beyond immediate effects and consider how local effects can spread across the world.

It is time to stop talking about the benign 2 degrees figure and reveal the malign threats which the average hides.

Posted in Climate change policy | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Blatter and the bigger problem

Blatter is not the problem.

The different attitudes towards Blatter around the world are telling.  We read that Africa, Asia, South America and Russia all support him.  They have different experience of him than we do.  They have benefitted from his regime – recently having the World Cup awarded to them, in the case of Brazil, Qatar, Russia and South Africa, for example, or being beneficiaries of his programmes to promote football in poorer countries (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-32928984).

So there is loyalty to the guy.

Most have genuine cause to support him.  Their culture is: “What’s the problem with someone creaming off a bit at the top if our kids get football pitches.  Everyone else does it.”

So this is not a problem about football.  It is a problem with the cultures of countries where what we call corruption is endemic, deeply rooted.  Where the elites have slightly but not hugely different values from our elites.

It is also a problem with double standards.  We shouldn’t kid ourselves that our elites are a lot better.  Among the top sponsors of FIFA are actually US companies: Coca Cola, McDonalds and Visa; and Adidas is German.  They know perfectly well how FIFA has been run during the years that they have sponsored it.  So they are not much better than the crooks working within FIFA, and the directors of Coca Cola, McDonalds and Visa should be shitting themselves because they have signed off on funding an organisation which they have good reason to suspect to be fraudulent.

And it is also a problem with globalisation: if it pays to have global companies making crap food and drinks and with global marketing budgets, you will get this happening.  Huge concentrations of money make this all possible.

Blatter is just a symptom of a world where unfairness is the norm.  He is just a symptom of mankind.

Posted in Environment, society, politics and economics | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Litter in Szentendre: personal failure and policy failure

On a walk in Szentendre by the Danube yesterday, the distinction between personal failure and policy failure was clearly visible.

This is the failure of individuals to be civilised citizens:

And this:

In contrast, this is policy failure:

The combined result of personal and policy failure is this – the waste ends up in the Danube:

It harasses the wildlife:

And ends up in the Danube Delta or the sea:

A brand-new organisation, Danube Kids, is helping children along the Danube in Romania connect with nature and learn about the wonders of the natural world around them.  Hopefully it will eventually have the resources to move upstream and get to Szentendre where local children will be able to show the adults, authorities and policy makers how to do things better.

A voluntary initiative like this can overcome the bungling of authorities, the slobbishness of individuals and the competitive-paralysis of drinks manufacturers.

Posted in Environment, society, politics and economics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Can curry change the world?

This morning about 4am I was lying in bed awake from a curry-induced nightmare about missing the train from Gillingham station (Dorset, not Kent).  I had wandered away from my suitcase which I had left at the very end of the platform, and when the train arrived I realised that it was too far from me to be able to get back to the suitcase and then lug it to the train.  Especially with that very slow walking that happens in bad dreams.

In a sleepy state, where much more is possible than during the day, I began thinking this: if I was as focussed, visionary, driven and capable as, say, Bill McKibben (350.org) what global movement would I set up?  Three came to mind, as follows (obviously the names need more work):

1. Coco: creating compassionate colleges and universities

A few months ago I read a comment by someone (and I have forgotten where I read it or who wrote it) that it is a pity that our great universities just churn out people who perpetuate the establishment.  I thought about this and realised that it is partly true and, inasmuch, it is an immense tragedy.

The great universities do a lot of great stuff – pioneering research into curing diseases, inventing low-energy materials and so forth.  If you have the world’s brainiest young people working for you for free, you would expect to do a lot of great stuff.  You’d even do it by accident.

But the people who leave Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford and so forth go on to be the leaders in our society; and they have been going on to be leaders in our society for centuries.  While society under their leadership has made some great steps forward – huge steps technologically, and some quite big steps culturally, there are some really huge, bad gaps: not least that the human race needs a completely different attitude to other living things on the planet – despite and because of all our progress our economy is still pretty much slash and burn.  Despite and because of all the progress there are still unspeakable, medieval cruelties and injustices happening in the world and not just in poor countries.

We have more than enough technical and organisational skills – most of the problems we have today have been solved, prevented or obviated at one time or another by societies with far less wealth and technology.  So instead of teaching people to be smart but unwise, universities should now be focussing far more on teaching their young charges wisdom, compassion and responsibility for the natural world.

This global movement would be about that: getting universities to be much more self-critical; not to be satisfied at the troubled world which reflects in part the desires, deeds and failures of their alumni and therefore in part their own teachings; to take far more responsibility for the future impact of their students on society; and to be like fonts in which our young people are baptised with compassion, wisdom and care for our planet and its inhabitants.

2. Believe! Putting belief into economics

Belief Economics (described ad nauseam in this blog) is the study which uncovers the relationship between the beliefs, motivations and aspirations of people and the nature of the economy.  It argues that all economic activity is the result of something that goes on in the minds of people (desires that we decide to satisfy through exchange), therefore to really understand the economy we have to understand the accumulated minds of individuals in the economy.  This is vitally important because many of the things which are imperilling the lives of plants, animals and humans on the planet – and thereby threatening the existence of the economy – are to do with the satisfying of human desires.  The study of economics is at risk of irrelevance unless it better incorporates understanding the human mind.

Being able to work out how value an option is a completely frivolous skill when 35,000 elephants are slaughtered a year to satisfy the status whims of rich Asians (unless the options trader channels his gains into the fight to save the elephant).  Rather, the economist might wish, for example, to understand how he can change the desires of the rich Asians in such a way so that their economy is founded on wholesome aspirations rather than the incidental destruction of the world’s forests and the slaughter of its wildlife.

Another example is the challenge to create an economically viable culture in the face of constrained resources.  A culture that is thrifty with water, for instance, might have an economic advantage over a profligate one by virtue of being more resilient in times of drought.  Knowing the value of that cultural pre-disposition to be careful with water could prompt us to devise effective ways to build a thrifty culture.

The development of the global movement for belief economics would be vital for the most influential science of economics to retain its relevance and importance in the future.

3. Prime time: priming children with a love of nature

This is definitely the single most important thing: to prime children so that they are filled with a love for the natural world, so that in later life there is a higher probability that they will be mindful of nature and care for it.

Today most children (in the rich world) are primed by images on screens encouraging them to pursue resource-intensive lifestyles and not give a fuck for the world around them.  Little wonder that that they grow up into adults which are ignorant of the impact of their lives on the natural world and, even if they know about it, they feel incapable to do anything about it, such is their thrall to spending money on crap.

There are already wonderful movements set up to address this problem: The Wild Network in the UK and the Children and Nature Network in the US.  These organisations are about getting young children out into nature, re-connecting with the real and wild world, imbuing into them a love for plants and animals.  They have a huge amount still to do in their own countries, and there is a desperate need for similar movements (with subtly different focusses or angles) in other countries of the world, not least developing countries.  In the latter places is the greatest risk that what has not yet been destroyed will be destroyed in the rush to escape from peasantry and from the constraints of nature.

A global movement would support national networks and work to spread the word to all countries of the world.

 

Call to action?  Unfortunately I don’t have the focus, vision, drive or capabilities of Bill McKibben.  If someone out there has, please consider these.  Meanwhile I will deal with a fourth movement inspired by last night’s curry.

Posted in Environment, society, politics and economics | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment