Out of step?

Apocalypse soon: the revenge of Gaia

2006-01-16T11:00:00.000Z

Just when you think that we've reached the bottom of the trough of pessimism, along comes James Lovelock. He's about to have his new book "The revenge of Gaia" published, and today's Independent fairly revels in the chance to give him a pulpit. In Why Gaia is wreaking revenge on our abuse of the environment by Michael McCarthy, we have a front-page spread on how we have already passed the point of no return. For those readers who feel strong enough, Lovelock himself preaches his gospel of hopelessness in The Earth is about to catch a morbid fever which may last as long as 100,000 years.

For example, the good professor says:

Our planet has kept itself healthy and fit for life, just like an animal does, for most of the more than three billion years of its existence. It was ill luck that we started polluting at a time when the sun is too hot for comfort. We have given Gaia a fever and soon her condition will worsen to a state like a coma. She has been there before and recovered, but it took more than 100,000 years. We are responsible and will suffer the consequences: as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics.

and follows with:

We are in a fool's climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.

This last snippet alludes to the cooling effect of atmospheric aerosols, which he believes will quickly disappear as industrial output plummets.

So, what's the old boy up to? He's a genuine believer in Earth's self-regulation, what he calls "Gaia". However, he makes the same mistakes as other deep greens: he believes worst case scenarios rather than looking at the evidence and, more importantly, he sees Mankind as something outside Nature. But, we humans are natural. Yes, we may have a greater range and apparent impact on the planet than other species, but that doesn't make us unnatural. What we do have is a unique capability for guilt and self-loathing, which manifests itself particularly as extreme environmentalism.

I see this as one of a series of apocalyptic prophesies over the century, this time in the trappings of environmentalism rather than religion. And yet, religion it effectively is.

Sorry, Professor Lovelock, I'm still an optimist, although I do occasionally read the Independent for entertainment value.

Good plants/bad plants

2006-01-12T09:04:00.000Z

In a paper published in Nature, scientists in Germany have reported the apparantly surprising finding that plants produce methane even when there is plenty of oxygen present, not just when they decay (see Plants revealed as methane source on the BBC website). According to this:

The possible implications are set out in Nature by David Lowe of New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, who writes: "We now have the spectre that new forests might increase greenhouse warming through methane emissions rather than decrease it by sequestering carbon dioxide."

If this turned out to be true, it would have major implications for the rules of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, which allows countries and companies to offset emissions from the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil by funding the planting of new forests or the restoration of deforested areas.

Now, if I was obsessed by conspiracy theories, I would be tempted to say that this startling discovery was now going to be picked up by climate change activists to discredit the idea of "carbon sinks". Although their deep gloom about the imminent destruction of the environment by evil humans is real enough (to them), they really don't want to see any possible solutions which don't make the perpetrators suffer. Planting trees as carbon sinks is seen as an easy way out, letting big "pollutors" off the hook.

On the other hand, this shows how easy it is to think we understand what's going on. If a significant percentage of atmospheric methane is a product of normal plant growth, that makes the centrally planned dictates of the Kyoto protocol an even blunter instrument than we all thought.

Fortunately, the article ends on a note of reason:

In fact, of course, trees are neither good nor bad. They are just there, and if they are producing methane now they always have been in natural conditions.

The study highlights, however, the extreme complexity of the relationship between the biological processes of the Earth and the chemistry of our atmosphere - and how much there is yet to discover.

How true.

The Soil Association: 60 years old and still a minority interest

2006-01-09T16:25:00.000Z

The Soil Association, the leading band of organic foodies in the UK, has just held its 60th anniversary conference. This has gone largely unnoticed by the general public, apart possibly from the fact that David Cameron spoke at their dinner. Since the Tory new boy is eager to prove his environmentalist credentials, this should come as no surprise.

What surprised me, however, was the fact that Caroline Lucas, the UK's single Green Party MEP, made a comment about Cameron's speech which, I have to admit, I agreed with:
Mr Cameron made a warm speech almost entirely devoid of content, according to Dr Lucas.

However, she restored my faith in her by herself making a very silly speech the next day (see Feeding our cities in the 21st century). It seems to surprise her that very little farming goes on in cities, and that large quantities of food need to be brought in on a daily basis. In fact, she seems to regard the very nature of cities to be "unsustainable" (whatever that means). According to her sources, the EU's "environmental footprint" is twice as large as its global carrying capacity. This arrant nonsense is based on dubious calculations designed to "prove" (all very Marxist, this) that we are living beyond our means, when all visible indications show this is clearly not the case.

Her solution is to encourage consumption of locally-produced food, organic of course. The "encouragement" would include public procurement rules which effectively mandate it. But the end result would be a vast cut in food miles and a blissfully happy and healthy society. Apart that is, from the farmers, both in Europe and developing countries, who make a living by selling urban dwellers food they can't grow themselves because they are working in other sectors and don't want to turn their flowerbeds over to potatoes. Oh, and perhaps the general public who appreciate a choice of good quality, affordable food. Still, if it makes the Soil Association happy...

Montreal: headline agreement, victory for all

2005-12-11T10:53:00.000Z

I am joining I'm sure many other bloggers commentating on the "breakthrough" agreement on climate change policy in Montreal in the early hour of Saturday morning. Nevertheless, stay with me if you will.

The headline is that the USA has been pressured into joining future negotiations on carbon emission targets beyond 2012, when obligations under the present Kyoto protocol lapse. "Son of Kyoto" is seen by environmentalists as a victory: the nations of the world will continue to work together to save the planet. Grown men wept when agreement was reached (probably for sheer joy that they could finally get some sleep).

Now let's look at the reality. America has agreed to talk, which I think is politically sensible, but has explicitly said it will not agree to targets. There is no conceivable possibility that major developing countries - China, India and Brazil in particular - will jeopardise their future growth in the name of climate control. And, finally, none of the major countries supporting Kyoto and the new agreement is likely to meet its 2012 targets other than by the sleight of hand of buying carbon credits from Russia and other countries whose heavy industry has collapsed.

So, the 10,000 delegates now leave their heated glass building in frigid Montreal and fly back to their home countries, to be collected at the airport by air-conditioned, chauffered cars. Thousands of column inches in newspapers will be wasted on analysis of an empty agreement. Governments will spend millions on measures to limit carbon dioxide emissions. The climate will continue to change under the influence of factors we don't understand. But at least it gives environmentalists something to concentrate on, and takes the pressure off other issues.

Green groups and Kyoto-ratifying governments hail this as a victory. The US should also see the benefits: it's more difficult to consider a country a pariah when it's part of a negotiation process. The burst of worrying research published in the last month or two will recede, and climate change will come lower down the priority list until the next big event. And, finally, we'll realise that governments just cannot take the political risk of legislating for the savage cuts in carbon intensity (and consequent harm to economic growth) to which they pay lip service.

In the meantime, oil, coal and gas prices will be subject to normal market forces, technology will advance, and our energy mix will change without any government interference.

A greener shade of blue

2005-12-09T08:50:00.000Z

Within 48 hours of becoming the new leader of the Conservative party, David Cameron is establishing his street cred with environmentalists. Today, he launches a new policy group on the environment, the first of six covering different areas. This is to be led by Sir John "beefburger" Gummer, which is hardly a surprise. Alongside him will be Zac Goldsmith, son of the late Sir James, brother to Jemima, editor of the Ecologist (bankrolled by his uncle Teddy) and prospective Tory candidate. He follows the tradition of eco-toffs, being in the company not just of his dotty uncle but also Lord Melchett and Jonathon Porritt (Baron Mond).

The policy group will be launched at the Wildfowl and Wetlands centre in Barnes with Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth in attendance, and, to complete the PR exercise, Cameron was tie-less when interviewed on the Today programme. Now that Tony Blair has announced publicly that the reality of politics means that economic factors have to be taken into account when the Kyoto protocol and other green shibboleths are considered, new boy David is trying to establish the Conservatives as greener than thou. Of course, they have competition from the erstwhile Norman Baker and others in the Lib-Dems, but this party can afford to indulge in some pretty radical policies as it doesn't have a hope in hell of gaining power.

So, where will this environmental enthusiasm lead before the next election? Well, according to a BBCi report this morning (Cameron to focus on the environment), Cameron said:

"The real test will come in 18 months time when we have to show we are prepared to take the tough decisions to meet the carbon reduction targets."

Actually, in 18 months time, it's much more likely that (particularly assuming the government-sponsored Stern report on the economics of climate change policy has been published) the political experience of Sir John Gummer will be called upon to explain that the Conservatives place rather more emphasis on economic growth than trendy green policies. Remember to read this post again in summer 2007...

Environmentally-friendly grenades

2005-12-08T10:21:00.000Z

Yes, that's right: environmentally-friendly grenades. According to a story in World Science (Earth-friendly grenades proposed), mining of copper for grenades is environmentally damaging. Even worse, apparently, is that detonating the grenades means that the copper cannot be recycled. The researchers, from the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology, suggest that replacing copper by plastic would be "greener". So that's OK, then: lob a grenade and save the planet. Perhaps plastic grenades will get a Greenpeace seal of approval (as long as they're produced from renewable resources, of course); in time, use of copper-based munitions may be regarded as a war crime.

Is it just me, or is this work rather missing the point? Grenades are a rather unsophisticated product of our creative ability to kill each other easily. Where does environmentalism come in to this? Is this just one more rather macabre illustration that environmentalism is the new religion?

Of course, global warming is to blame...

2005-09-01T17:58:00.000Z

To blame for what? Well, pretty much everything. Latest on the list, predictably, is hurricane Katrina. Sir David King, never one to miss an opportunity to push home the message, is quoted from an interview on Channel 4 News in yesterday’s Independent (King: global warming may be to blame):

"The increased intensity of hurricanes is associated with global warming," Professor King told Channel 4 News yesterday. "We have known since 1987 the intensity of hurricanes is related to surface sea temperature and we know that, over the last 15 to 20 years, surface sea temperatures in these regions have increased by half a degree centigrade.

"So it is easy to conclude that the increased intensity of hurricanes is associated with global warming."

Yes, but perhaps Sir David draws the conclusion too easily, because it supports a political agenda. Looking at longer-term evidence suggests that neither the intensity nor frequency of hurricanes is currently out of the ordinary. Looking back over the last century, it seems that Atlantic hurricanes were more frequent in the 1930s, and that the end of the 20^th Century was a relatively quiet time. In the last few years, we seem to have experienced a cyclical increase in activity. At the same time, the populations and property values in vulnerable areas have increased, meaning that landfall by hurricanes can cause greater damage and loss of life.

Klaus Topfer, head of the UN’s environment programme, and another serial offender, has similarly placed the blame for this year’s floods in Northern Europe and drought and forest fires in Southern Europe on global warming (that is, manmade climate change). His interview with FT Germany was also reported on the Euractiv website (UN director links natural disasters and climate change).

Climate changes, however they are induced, are bound to affect local weather patterns. But, rather than engage in gloom-mongering in a vain attempt to force down emissions of carbon dioxide, we should be putting our efforts into adapting. It’s pretty certain that a high proportion of our energy needs in 2050 will be generated other than from fossil fuels. These changes will be driven by economics and Mankind’s inventiveness. In the meantime, cherry picking the facts and spinning them to meet a politically correct agenda is unscientific and benefits no-one.

Mobile phone cancer link rejected

2005-09-01T16:52:00.000Z

So reads the BBC headline. Oh dear, what are we going to worry about now? Fortunately, help is at hand, as the Cancer Research UK study reported “only” looked at the people using mobile phones for ten years. And look at the following quotes:

Senior investigator Professor Anthony Swedlow said: "Whether there are longer-term risks remains unknown, reflecting the fact that this is a relatively recent technology."

Dr Michael Clark from the Health Protection Agency said: "This is good news but we still need to be a bit cautious."

Dr Julie Sharp, senior science information officer at Cancer Research UK, said: "This study provides further evidence that using mobile phones does not increase the risk of brain tumours.

"However, it is important that researchers continue to monitor phone users over the coming years as mobiles are still a relatively new invention."

In other words, still feel free to worry. It seems that, despite the mounting evidence, there will always be room for caution. In the case of mobile phones, the vast majority of people will continue to use theirs as normal and not worry, because they enjoy the benefits. However, similar concerns are also expressed about mobile phone masts, even though there is still no evidence of harm. The BBC1 “Should I worry” series covered both phones and masts last year, and did an interesting piece of research, reported as follows:

The Should I Worry About team decided to carry out a test. We put ten students in a house for ten days and erected a mobile mast in the garden. We weren't entirely honest with them though; we told the students the mast was on at the start of the experiment and off at the end. In fact it was off at the start and on at the end. What's interesting is that the only time any of the students felt ill was when the mast was OFF but they thought it was ON.

Our small experiment suggests that people's fear of phone masts can be a factor in making them feel unwell. There are some people though who might be affected by phone masts and a large study is just beginning at Essex University to try to spot these hypersensitive people.

Say no more?

Politically correct astronauts

2005-08-04T16:22:00.000Z

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would have a fine time suggesting links between the environmental movement and NASA. However, I'm not that paranoid, so I'll just draw your attention to a BBC report - Shuttle crew see damage on Earth.

According to this:

Discovery Commander Eileen Collins described on Thursday how widespread environmental destruction on Earth is highly visible from the shuttle..."Sometimes you can see how there is erosion, and you can see how there is deforestation," Commander Collins said during a conversation from space with Japanese officials in Tokyo, including Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi... "It's very widespread in some parts of the world. We would like to see, from the astronauts' point of view, people take good care of the Earth and replace the resources that have been used."

Utter rubbish, of course: unless they have been making observations regularly over the last few decades. And who are they to judge about "deforestation"? Our agriculture-based societies have grown up because our ancestors cut down trees to grow crops. Of course, we don't want to lose all our trees, but we aren't: forest area in the Northern hemisphere at least is actually increasing. And it's easy to plant more trees if we want to. Recent reports also suggest that trees don't, as previously thought, lock up carbon from the atmosphere until they die. Instead, the carbon begins to be released again only about five years after planting. Trees are not uniquely the "lungs of the Earth": all green plants take up carbon dioxide and produce oxygen.

Please, NASA, don't join in these games: you have enough to worry about getting the shuttle back safely and deciding what your future is.

Optimism about our future

2005-07-20T16:56:00.000Z

It's nice to be able to comment on some encouraging and optimistic news. Last week, the Technology, Entertainment and Design conference was held in Oxford. Their own website (TED program) gives a flavour of what they're about, but doesn't yet report on this year's event. The BBC summary Big Thinkers show the way Forward has some snippets and comments.

What comes over is the optimism and enthusiasm for Mankind's future. According to the BBC report "The brains of delegates at the conference were left buzzing with shared ideas about how to use science, design and technology for sustainable development, environmental regeneration and ending global poverty."

But so often we are told that technology is the problem and that we can't solve our these problems via more "technical fixes". In this case, a group of thinkers came together to share and discuss their ideas in a country notably cynical about science. Few people who regard themselves as part of the intelligensia have a science background, and it's almost a badge of pride in the media not to understand science.

How refreshing, then, to hear that:

There seemed to be a few assumptions underlying a lot of the ideas at TED such as:

despite terrorism, environmental destruction and poverty, the future could be bright
technology can solve more problems than it creates
entrepreneurs are good and governments are inflexible

This was spoilt by the reporter then saying that no-one seemed to question these assumptions. So, the true pessimism of the media is revealed again...

The Grauniad gets it right on risk!

2005-06-20T13:13:00.000Z

Long time, no blog. But today, I've been stirred into action by an excellent piece by Ben Oldacre in the Guardian, a paper I normally pick out for criticism rather than praise. But, credit where credit is due: despite the politically correct, greenish, anti-corporate, anti-science editorial stance, it does also publish some well written and thoughtful articles.

The piece today (Risky business), essentially covers the misuse of statistics by people who don't understand them, thus contributing to needless alarm. The thrust of his argument is that we should be using natural frequencies (ie, how often something actually happens) rather than statistical percentage increases in risk. For example:

"Let's say the risk of having a heart attack in your 50s is 50% higher if you have high cholesterol: that sounds pretty bad. Let's say the extra risk of having a heart attack if you have high cholesterol is only 2%. That sounds OK to me. But they're both talking about the same (hypothetical) figures. Out of a hundred men in their 50s with normal cholesterol, four will be expected to have a heart attack; whereas out of 100 men with high cholesterol, six will be expected to have a heart attack. That's two extra heart attacks. Those are natural frequencies. Easy."

Sounds good to me. He also concludes (quite rightly, I think) that reporters don't go out of their way to scare people (although there are exceptions, I'm sure); they just don't know what they're talking about. To me, that's a lot more worrying and highlights a need for greater scientific literacy in the media as well as in society generally. To quote Oldacre again:

"I could be a lot more forgiving if I believed that a nefarious, knowing, numerate media was choosing to report the higher, scarier percentage figures, to mislead and titillate an innumerate public. Actually, I think that they just don't understand what they are reporting."

Hear, hear.

Blair supports a rational approach to risk!

2005-05-28T09:57:00.000Z

In various of yesterday's UK national papers, Tony Blair's remarks on risk taking were reported. With the notable exception of the FT, this wasn't front-page news, but coverage extended as far as the Sun as well as the weighter press.

Taking the ill-named Independent, for example, the headline is PM - we must accept risks. This was actually a piece of factual reporting. It does seem that Blair is indeed making a stand for rationality and evidence-based decision making. To take one quote:
"It is time to have a proper dialogue about how science and its risks are evaluated and reported. Biotechnology is probably the coming industry of the world," Mr Blair said in a speech in London to the Institute of Public Policy Research.

"Britain and Europe should be world leaders. We are in grave danger of blowing our chance. If we do, we will rue it bitterly."

The speech also criticised the compensation culture, and this is the main tack taken by the Times (Blair attacks compensation culture). The theme was still sensible risk taking: in this case, don't spoil the enjoyment of millions of schoolchildren on outings because of one tragedy.

Let's now see how this translates into real policy and action. We might, just might, be seeing a shift towards rational decision making in government. Whatever we may think of some of their decisions, we elect politicians to lead, not to cave in to whichever pressure group makes the most fuss.

Shock, horror: toxic chemicals found in celebrities' blood!

2005-05-16T15:04:00.000Z

My first posting for a while, so time for a good rant.

An unholy alliance of the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Co-Op bank has tested the blood of "celebrities" for a range of potentially dangerous industrial chemicals (see "Toxic chemicals" in celebrities as reported by the BBC).

According to the report:

Justin Woolford, of WWF's Chemicals and Health Campaign, said the tests showed all the celebrities were "contaminated with toxic chemicals".

"It highlights the shocking fact that it is impossible for any of us to avoid these nasty substances," he said.

Actually, it highlights the fact that all these "celebrities" are alive and well and that there is absolutely no reason to suppose that minuscule quantities of synthetic chemicals are doing them any harm at all (assuming that Anthony Worrall Thompson, for example, was equally obnoxious without additives). Among the horrors we are told were found (and, by the way, no levels were given, so we're probably talking about close to the level of detectability in some cases) were:

DDT - Banned in many countries because of some apparent negative impacts on raptors when used in a totally uncontrolled way, but now being used in a number of tropical countries as the cheapest, most effective and safest way to reduce malaria. The reason it is often detected is that it is a highly stable molecule. Since its toxicity is extremely low, and it is difficult to break down, that seems to me to make it pretty safe.
Brominated fire retardants - responsible for saving many lives each year in house fires by preventing furniture foam burning and creating toxic smoke.
Perfluorinated compounds used in non-stick treatments - Teflon to you or me. Since we regularly eat food cooked directly on this, it doesn't meet many normal people's criteria for "toxic".

So, once again, we have scientific facts (the low level presence of these substances) twisted to suit a particular political agenda, based on the fact that "man-made" or "industrial" = "bad". Not only that, but if I was an account holder or shareholder of the Co-Op bank, I would object to my money being used for such purposes.

The insidious propagation of material like this needs to be resisted: does anyone have any good ideas about how?

Latest mobile phone research

2005-04-12T10:01:00.000Z

A further study on the potential link between mobile phone use and brain tumours has been published by a Danish group (see Mobile phones "safe for brains" on the BBC website, for example). This shows no link between the two: the scientific evidence is building that mobile use is really not a direct risk to health. Nevertheless, many are still urging precaution. Dr Christoffer Johansen, author of the paper, is quoted as saying "We advise all people who use a mobile phone to use a hands free set. It reduces exposure".

There are a number of other studies due to be published in the next eighteen months. The likelihood is that these will also show there to be no problem. But will this satisfy those who are concerned? Unlikely: some will almost certainly continue to call for "more research". Of course, no amount of scientific enquiry can ever prove 100% safety, but as more evidence is amassed, we should really move on to more pressing concerns. The problem is that the scientific method is merely an overlay on the belief system of a particular individual. People will not usually change deeply-held views just because of facts.

Such is life. There are no obvious ways to change this. In the meantime, scientists must continue to test hypotheses as objectively as possible.

"Healthfoods" good; additives bad

2005-04-05T19:55:00.000Z

It's a funny old world. There is much rejoicing among sandal-wearers today at the opinion of an advocate general at the European Court of Justice that the EU directive on vitamin and mineral supplements should be annulled (see Throw out EU food supplement laws, court aide says). The directive would create a positive list of permitted vitamins and supplements of the kind which fill the shelves in so-called "healthfood" stores beloved of a certain section of society. The court's recommendation is actually based on a technicality: there is no clear guidance on how a new supplement might be deemed to be suitable to be put on the list. Nevertheless, this is being hailed as a triumph by the Alliance for Natural Health and other campaigning groups.

If the court accepts this advice - which is likely - then this market will continue to be unregulated, and consumers will continue to be able to buy untested, unstandardised extracts with, in most cases, no proven efficacy or safety data. Since the content of any active ingredient will often be minimal, they can generally at least do no harm, apart from parting the gullible from their money. However, the same people who demand to be able to continue to buy their "natural" extracts would often avoid like the plague additives which have undergone extremely thorough safety testing and are tightly regulated. Equally, they would probably regard GM food - about which we know much more than "conventional" crops - as the work of the devil.

Which only goes to show that people are not always rational decision makers. They operate from the comfort of their belief systems, and no amount of regulation, testing or assurances from experts will ever convince them that something is safe if they have already come to the opposite conclusion. Equally, as this example shows, no amount of well-meaning regulation to protect consumers will necessarily convince them what they eat needs testing at all, if it's something they believe is "good". As I said, it's a funny old world...

Keep on eating sensibly

2005-03-16T10:34:00.000Z

In the last year or two, acrylamide has been raised as a possible significant health hazard. This chemical - which can cause cancer in laboratory animals at high dosage rates - is widely present in cooked food, particularly if they have been treated at high temperatures. Possible culprits include bread, crisps, chips and coffee. Today, one more piece of good news was reported (see Cooking chemical "no cancer risk" on the BBC news website, for example), where it is reported that Swedish scientists found no evidence of a link between dietary acrylamide and breast cancer. This now joins the list of other common cancers not caused by acrylamide in our food.

The story includes a very sensible and balanced quote:

'Henry Scowcroft, science information officer at Cancer Research UK, said: "Previous research has suggested that acrylamide can cause several types of cancer in animals, and several studies have shown that it is present in small amounts in baked and fried foods.

"However, the levels found in foods are miniscule compared to the amount that causes cancer in animals, and so several groups around the world have been looking at whether acrylamide in food is actually a health hazard."

He added: "We welcome the results of this study, which suggest that acrylamide in food has no effect on human breast cancer rates".'

Interestingly, the potential risk form acrylamide was not over-hyped and does not seem to have caused significant changes in eating habits among the worried well. Is this, perhaps, because it is "natural"? The reaction was in contrast to the recent Sudan 1 scare, where the story received high attention for a much longer time, almost certainly because this azo dye is synthetic and was present in "processed" foods, which have acquired an increasingly bad press. If bread isn't processed, I don't know what is, but the perception of ready meals is clearly different.

Wood-burning stoves are bad - but for the wrong reason

2005-03-09T18:27:00.000Z

A paper in the latest edition of Science (Residential biofuels in South Asia: Carbonaceous Aerosol Emissions and Climate Impact;Ventakatarama et al; Science; Vol 307, 2005; pp 1454-56) should win an award for missing the point. Their finding is that soot from domestic cooking in rural India - using wood or cow dung as fuel - is a major contributor to the region's impact on climate change.

Only passing mention is made to cleaner cooking methods "yielding significant local local health and air quality benefits". However, indoor cooking with wood-burning stoves is known to be a serious health hazard. For example, in an article on the SciDev website covering the Science paper (Cooking with wood "contributes to climate change") it is reported that "According to the Intermediate Technology Development Group, indoor pollution caused by burning biofuels affects the health of hundreds of millions of people, and kills more children each year than malaria or HIV/AIDS. Among the diseases linked to stove use are pneumonia, lung cancer and respiratory tract infections."

It looks like the current fashion for guilt over supposed Man-made climate change has blinded some people to the very real and unnecessary suffering of fellow human beings, which could be eliminated at a fraction of the cost of complying with the Kyoto protocol. On the other hand, maybe this is a well-meaning attempt to fund a very worthwhile initiative on the back of climate change work. Who knows?

British wind is better than German wind

2005-02-28T17:06:00.000Z

Following the recent critical report on the wind power sector in Germany, the usual suspects in the UK have rushed to defend it. Both the DTI and Greenpeace, according to this BBC story (Anti-wind farm report dismissed) seem to think that the situation is different in the UK and have a touching belief that all problems will be solved by the time we have installed thousands more wind turbines, capable of contributing significantly to our energy requirements when the wind blows at just the right speed. Look forward to power cuts blamed on the "wrong kind of wind".

Second thoughts about phasing out nuclear and relying on wind power

2005-02-26T10:07:00.000Z

Germany currently has 40% of the world's installed wind power generation capacity: a staggering 16,000 turbines which are capable - occasionally - of generating up to 15% of the country's requirements. In practice, only 3% of the total power comes from wind, whereas one-third is from nuclear stations. The plans at present are to decommission each of these after 32 years, while still reducing carbon dioxide emissions to 40% below the 1990 baseline by 2020, by which time there would be no nuclear generating capacity left. This ambitious target is to be met by phasing out coal-fired power stations, but it is unclear what will replace them. There seem to be many in the country who are now questioning the wisdom of the strategy, and arguing for at least an extension of the operating life of existing nuclear stations. For more see the story Germany split over green energy on the BBC website.

Is a refreshing dash of realism finally entering the European energy policy debate?

UK orders another nanotech review

2005-02-26T09:55:00.000Z

As detailed in this BBC report the UK science minister (at least until the forthcoming election), Lord Sainsbury, has provided the government's response to last year's Royal Society report on nanotechnology. Predictably, they have ordered a further review, to address gaps in the knowledge and contribute towards appropriate regulation. Equally predictably, they are providing no more money, and detailed plans will not be available until the autumn, more than a year after the Royal Society report was issued.

To some extent, this highlights the dilemma politicians find themselves in: they want to avoid new technologies suffering the same current fate as GM crops, but don't really know what the answer is. The natural temptation is to resort to precautionary regulation, but the evidence is that this does nothing to reassure people. The average citizen thinks that if something is highly regulated, there's probably something wrong with it.

There is a clear case for going forward on the basis of evidence: by all means being cautious, but not succumbing to the lure of unnecessary precaution to try (unsuccessfully) to address the concerns of the worried activist minority. We elect governments to lead and take rational decisions on our behalf, not to be swayed by those who shout loudest.

Why we have nothing to fear from "toxic" food

2005-02-19T17:55:00.000Z

"Carcinogenic dye in hundreds of food products" screams the headline in today's Guardian. "359 foods in cancer alert" is the Daily Mirror's take. According to this story - carried prominently by all the other UK dailies and a major item on yesterday's television and radio news - "More than 350 food products were swept off supermarket shelves yesterday in the biggest safety scare since the BSE crisis." The Food Standards Agency website was swamped with hits, and many people were doubtlessly sorting through their stocks of food (with shaking hands).

The truth is rather less frightening. A batch of chilli powder, imported from India, had been found to contain traces of a dye - Sudan 1 - which is not approved for food use. Before this was detected, the chilli powder had been used to make Worcester sauce, which in turn had been used as an ingredient of a wide range of prepared foods. So, a trace of a non-permitted additive was diluted, say, 100 fold when the sauce was made. This, in turn, was diluted probably another 100 fold when the sauce was used in the various recipes. The likelihood is that the dye was not even detectable in the Worcester sauce, let alone the food products on the shelf.

But this fact seems to be an even greater cause for concern. According to the Guardian article "Consumers are demanding ever greater information about the food they eat and the uncomfortable truth is that the dye seems to have been present often at undetectable levels." So we're told to worry about an infinitesimal potential risk when we are consuming much greater levels of known carcinogens from natural sources daily, with little apparent ill effect (I'm not aware that coffee drinkers like myself have an increased mortality rate, for example).

Not only that, but we don't even know that Sudan 1 is carcinogenic. According to the BBC on-line report (Food recalled in cancer dye scare), 'Dr Julie Sharp, of Cancer Research UK, said the people who had already eaten foods that had been contaminated had no reason to panic.She said: "The risk of cancer in humans from Sudan I has not been proven and any risk from these foods is likely to be very small indeed." ' But this didn't stop a good example of the kind of pithy quotes which journalists love. Turning this particular recall into an attack on the modern food chain, Joanna Blythman, a "food campaigner", said "But because supermarkets now control 80% of the nation's food basket, if there is a problem it spreads like head lice through a nursery."

Clearly, the affected foods had to be recalled, because they had been made with an ingredient containing a trace of an illegal colour. However, I'm willing to bet that much more harm befell the people clearing the shelves (in the form of cuts and bruises) than would have resulted if all the contaminated food had been eaten.

Carbon dioxide is not pollution

2005-02-16T11:11:00.000Z

Today, as environmentalists celebrate the Kyoto protocol becoming part of international law, there is inevitably blanket coverage of the event. One example (see EU leads Kyoto "carbon revolution") is from the BBC website, where carbon dioxide is referred to as a "pollutant". This is an egregious misuse of the word, if ever I heard one. Carbon dioxide is a trace gas in the atmosphere. Animals (including ourselves) breathe it out, plants use it as food and return oxygen to the air we breathe. A somewhat increased level in the atmosphere is not pollution by any normal definition of the word.

It's unarguable that carbon dioxide levels are rising, and it's also clear that humans have a part to play in this. However, despite theorising and intensive computer modelling, there is still no reasonable proof that continued increases will lead to "dangerous" climate change. Within my lifetime, the concern being bandied about was that we were due to enter a new Ice Age, and our basic understanding of what causes glaciations and warm periods is no better now than it was then.

This is not to say that reducing our use of fossil fuels is a bad idea in itself. As technology progresses, our energy sources will change and the efficiency of use will increase. With or without Kyoto, I'm willing to bet that by mid-century our mix of power generation will look quite different from the present (and also that wind power will be but a small fraction of the total). We genuinely don't know what technologies will be economic by then. My guess is that we will have invested in considerably more nuclear capacity, but that this will probably have been superseded by other technologies (perhaps, finally, including nuclear fusion). We don't need the Kyoto protocol for that, and we certainly don't need to mis-label carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

Tomorrow is Kyoto day

2005-02-15T21:25:00.000Z

On 16th February, the Kyoto protocol finally comes into force, and fact which will be cause for much rejoicing among greenish people everywhere. In fact, this protocol is likely to be merely a barrier to economic growth, with a barely-perceptible effect on global temperatures. Bjorn Lomborg has made this case against it much more eloquently and authoritatively than I can. Now, on Kyoto-eve, Rosemary Righter also strongly criticizes this rigid and ineffective instrument of policy in today's Times (see link). Read it and weep...

The sooner the world's policy-makers realise that Kyoto is a dead-end, the better. This realisation may come when rapidly growing economies such as China, India and Brazil thank the currently-developed world for politely slowing its economic growth to enable them to catch up, but decline to follow our example. It may come as evidence builds up that average temperatures are not, in fact, inexorably rising around the world. Or there may just be an acknowledgement that the ability to model one small factor in global climate brings us no closer to understanding the major cycles which take the world in and out of Ice Ages. Whatever the catalyst, the sooner we start adapting to change rather than trying vainly to prevent it, the better off we will all be.

Organic food

2005-02-06T10:57:00.000Z

Although this is not new, I thought I would bring to your attention an article in January's food monthly supplement in the Observer (see link). This compares the treatment of "organic" and "non-organic" fruit and vegetables, in a way guaranteed to increase the yuk factor and reinforce Guardian and Ob readers' prejudicies about the way their food is being "poisoned". The distance food is shipped, often from abroad, is also subject to criticism.

This tells us nothing about the nutritional value or eating quality of the produce. It tells us nothing about the many toxins and carcinogens naturally present in foods at much higher levels than any residues of synthetic pesticides. It tells us nothing about the harmful effect that local sourcing of all our food would have on the economies of developing countries, whose main competitive advantage lies in the supply of out-of-season fresh produce to the industrialised world.

In my view, unbalanced and partially-informed comment of the worst kind.

Second thoughts about wind power

2005-02-03T09:57:00.000Z

A Daily Telegraph article this week entitled Germany shelves report on wind farm produced energy (see link; free registration required) says that 'A damning report warning that wind-farm programmes will greatly increase energy costs and that "greenhouse gases" can be reduced easily by conventional methods has been shelved.' It emphasises the high cost of wind power and the fact that standby capacity, running inefficiently, needs to be on hand to cope with the highly variable output of wind farms.

This is not to say that wind power is inappropriate under all circumstances; just that it is at best a small part of the move to a greater variety of power generation sources.

The way to avoid such mistakes is, as always, to concentrate on effects rather than slavishly pursuing politically correct routes to a solution. Flexibility of thought and action is the key.

Good news on natural resources

2005-01-30T20:27:00.000Z

On January 22nd, the Economist (an essential read for anyone except left-wingers who can't bear to admit that free markets work better than centrally planned economies) published a survey of Corporate Social Responsiblity. This is a typically cool and balanced look at the phenomenon (or fashion) which has become an essential part of doing business for many large companies. However, hidden in there is an interesting summary of the situation regarding natural resources:

"Natural resources are not running out, if you measure effective supply in relation to demand. The reason is that scarcity raises prices, which spurs innovation: new sources are found, the efficiency of extraction goes up, existing supplies are used more economically, and substitutes are invented. In 1970, global reserves of copper were estimated at 280m tonnes; during the next 30 years about 270m tonnes were consumed. Where did estimated reserves of copper stand at the turn of the century? Not at 10m tonnes, but at 340m. Available supplies have surged, and, it so happens, demand per unit of economic activity has been falling: copper is being replaced in many of its main industrial applications by other materials (notably, fibre-optic cable instead of copper wire for telecommunications).
Copper, therefore, is unlikely ever to run out—and if it did, in some very distant future, it would be unlikely by then to matter. The same is true for other key minerals. Reserves of bauxite in 1970 were 5.3 billion tonnes; the amount consumed between 1970 and 2000 was around 3 billion tonnes; reserves by the end of the century stood at 25 billion tonnes. Or take energy. Oil reserves in 1970: 580 billion barrels. Oil consumed between 1970 and the turn of the century: 690 billion barrels. Oil reserves in 2000: 1,050 billion barrels. And so on."

Technically, these resources are limited, but the reality is somewhat different. This really casts a lot of doubt on much of the environmentalist credo.

The full survey can be found at the link (paid registration required, bit it's well worth it!).

We've only got ten years left

2005-01-25T11:32:00.000Z

A further report, published by the International Climate Change Taskforce aims to influence the G8 to take action to keep carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere below 400 ppm. Given that the current level is 380 ppm, they reckon that we have ten years to take action to achieve this. If not, we're all doomed to suffer the effects of uncontrolled global warming (average temperatures rising by more than 2 degrees C). The Taskforce is a front for the Institute of Public Policy Research ("the UK's leading progressive thinktank"), joined by the Center for American Progress and the Australia Institute (whoever they may be).

According to Alex Kirby's report "A leading climate scientist has told the BBC he thinks temperatures may be higher than 2C some time this century. " A pretty safe assumption, I would have thought!

More gloom from the Hadley Centre

2005-01-21T10:45:00.000Z

According to a piece on the BBC news website today: "The amount of fresh water entering the Arctic Ocean from the rivers that feed it is increasing, UK scientists report.
Writing in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, they say the increase is caused in part by human activities and is an early sign of climate change.
The rise in fresh water entering the Arctic Ocean could change the global distribution of water, the team says.
It could also affect the balance of the climate system itself and even possibly alter the behaviour of the Gulf Stream.
The team is from the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, part of the UK Met Office. " (For the full story, follow the link below).

It is now received wisdom that Mankind's effect on the planet is entirely negative, and that our latest sin is to change the global climate. Let's look at the facts:

Climate is always changing, and there have certainly been some significant changes in our lifetimes: earlier Springs, for example.
Carbon dioxide levels are undisputably higher now than in pre-industrial times, and the rate of use of fossil fuels must have been a major contributor to this.
Carbon dioxide is not the major contributor to the greenhouse effect: there is vastly more water vapour in the atmosphere, the effect of which is overwhelming, and methane (another trace gas) also has a greater influence. The concern about carbon dioxide is because it has a much longer residence time in the atmosphere (several decades) and therefore its effect might only be apparent in the longer term.
Despite the statements from the IPCC and other official sources, the science of climate change is uncertain: we really don't understand the system and can only model effects in a mechanistic way. In the last thousand years or so, there have been several well-documented warm and cold periods. These may have been influenced by Man's activities (eg clearing of forests) but were certainly not due to industrial emissions.
We really don't know the consequences of trying to reduce our emissions drastically. It may make no difference to the current changes; it may actually bring forward the next glaciation.

In the meantime, rather than put growth at risk by pursuing Kyoto goals (which very few countries will meet) there are a number of global problems where activity now could make a real difference to people's lives: providing fresh water, increasing food security, fighting disease, to name but three. And healthy, well-fed people can lift themselves out of poverty and adapt to changes in climate far better. After all, Mankind has become the dominant species by being more adaptable than the competition.

But this is not a fashionable view: most people seem to prefer (to a greater or lesser degree) to feel the guilt of despoiling the Earth. I seem to be out of step. Is anyone else?

Introduction

2005-01-20T11:18:00.000Z

This is a new blog, designed to help me get things off my chest and reduce my blood pressure. And, as it develops, it may be useful to others: who knows? As I'm new to blogging, readers will have to bear with me, but why not stay with this and see what develops.

As a taste of my views, you might want to check out a recent opinion piece on the More Than Science website, taking nanotechnology as a starting point (click on the link below). Comments welcomed!