Leaving Forever

[MOBIUS]

I'm off to the Hay Festival tomorrow...

Clinton called it "The Woodstock of the Mind", though I'm not sure that's a recommendation...

It's in Wales, obviously.

[Krill]

Boaring

[Kitschum]

FOREVER?

[MOBIUS]

Of course!

[Kitschum]

That's the best kind of leaving!

[SlowwHand]

Unless he's going to screw a hog, which would likely be a sow, it's boring. I guess he may go for a male hog, in which case boaring would be correct. I wouldn't be too shocked.

[MOBIUS]

Wow, Slowwy - that's uncharacteristically intelligent of you...

[Theben]

Clinton called it "The Woodstock of the Mind", though I'm not sure that's a recommendation...

It's in Wales, obviously.

For a festival that seeks to stimulate intellectual growth, of course it would go to where help was most needed.

[MOBIUS]

Or where it is most likely to be appreciated - so not Indiana then...

[MOBIUS]

My friend and I were there over the Friday and Saturday in what was excellent sunny weather. We were both interested in several talks regarding climate change, and I have just finished proofing his notes (any I've missed, let me know...) of the following talks:

“Fighting the banana wars and other fair trade battles”, 22nd May 2009 - Harriet Lamb (Director of the Fairtrade Foundation) talks to Rosie Boycott

"The Politics of Climate Change", 22nd May 2009 - Anthony Giddens, ‘Politics-as-usual won’t deal with the problems we face, while the recipes of the green movement are flawed at source.’

"The Guardian Sessions: Blueprint for a Safer Planet", 22nd May 2009 - Nicholas Stern, What is the problem? What are the dangers? What can be done to reduce emissions? At what cost? How can the world adapt? And, what does all this mean for corporations, governments and individuals?

Ed Miliband and Franny Armstrong, 23rd May 2009 - The Secretary of State for the Environment screens clips from and discusses the eco-film Age of Stupid with the film's director.

"The World in 2050", 23rd May 2009 - Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal looks to the future and what we don’t yet know.

===============

I will post the notes we got of each of the talks in order below. Perhaps they will stimulate interesting debate and maybe even spawn their own threads - though knowing this forum, I don't hold out much hope...

[MOBIUS]

Hay on Wye Festival – 22-23 May 2009

“Fighting the banana wars and other fair trade battles”, 22nd May 2009 - Harriet Lamb talks to Rosie Boycott

The Fair Trade movement is only 15 years old. Many people said that it would not work, it would fail. Bananas require large infrastructure to grow and transport, trucking, refrigerated ships etc. The big banana companies e.g. Dole, Chiquita, they own their own ships. The early days of fair trade bananas were extremely difficult, and the big companies used dirty tricks to try to shut them down. The Fair Trade movement succeeded. For example, today, 30% of all bananas sold in the UK are Fair Trade.

FT continues to grow extremely rapidly (although so far with small penetration into the US market) and it now covers coffee, tea, sugar (Tate and Lyle recently made all their retail sugar sales fair trade) other agricultural commodities and starting to move into cotton. They had 43% sales growth in 2008. Even during the credit crunch, so far growth remains very rapid. Possibly because once people have made the switch to fair trade goods, making the statement that they care about the abject poverty of so many third world farmers, it is psychologically difficult to change back and say that you don’t care any more. Fair trade banana sales grew at a rate of 20% during the first quarter of 2009.

Fair trade shows the power of the “living alternative”. It shows what can be achieved if the drive and will is there, against apparently large odds.

[MOBIUS]

Anthony Giddens, 22nd May 2009

Anthony Giddens is a former director of the London School of Economics. He is a sociologist, known for his interdisciplinary thinking. He is known for being one of the architects of the “Third Way”, the recent politics of the centre left epitomised by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. Giddens recently published a book called “The politics of climate change”. There is a quote from Clinton on the front cover of the book; “A landmark study in the struggle to contain climate change, the greatest challenge of our era. I urge everyone to read it.”

Giddens began by showing a print of the famous picture by Edward Munch, “The Scream”. He explained the provenance of this painting. The sky is blood red. The inspiration for the painting came from seeing a blood red sky for real. It was painted just after the eruption of Krakatoa. This was a huge eruption that threw up a large amount of dust into the atmosphere, causing spectacular sunsets. The dust blocked out the sun so that in the year after the eruption, the Earth’s global average temperature temporarily fell by 1°C. This is an extremely large change in just one year and it shows how the Earth’s climate can respond very rapidly on occasion.

Giddens divided up people into 3 categories:

• Climate sceptics. A few years ago these people denied that the climate was changing. Now, the evidence is unequivocal, so they have switched tack. They now generally agree that the climate is changing but will not concede that the primary cause of the change is mankind. For these people, the Earth climate system is robust. They do not believe that what mankind does has any significant effect on the climate system.

• The mainstream. This group is represented by the IPCC. They believe that the Earth is fragile. What we do might cause catastrophe to the Earth.

• The radicals. These are represented by scientists such as James Hansen and James Lovelock. They think that the Earth’s climate system is robust, like the sceptics. However, they think that it is not unchangeable. We could provoke it and it has the character of a ferocious wild animal that will attack us vulnerable humans.

Giddens thinks that it is a mistake to wait for an agreement in Copenhagen to save us. He thinks that any agreement made is unlikely to be adequate to solve the problem. Learning from Kyoto, the deal itself is likely to be an inadequate compromise and the enforcement mechanisms will not be sufficient to make countries comply.

Climate change is an extremely difficult policy problem to solve. Because the dangers are so far abstract, they are uncovered by science, but we cannot yet see them. If we wait until the dangers are real, it is too late. How do we mobilise people? Giddens thinks it is a mistake to try to scare people into action - we need to give them positive reasons to act.

Giddens looked at the change in political thinking between the 1950’s and 1960’s when central planning was in vogue, to the last 20 years during which time central planning has been scrapped, in favour of free markets. He argues that we now need a return to planning.

He thinks that we need a return to quasi-utopian politics, another thing that has fallen out of favour in the last few decades. He thinks that we are on the verge of a new society. This is a big period for intellectuals to imagine what kind of future do we want to have. For example, can we imagine a future without cars, or a future where no-one owns their own vehicle, all vehicles are rented. He also mentioned the research that has shown that economic growth above a certain level does not make people any happier (in his book he refers to this in more details, and he refers to the 1972 “Limits to Growth” book).

Giddens mentioned Francis Fukayama’s “The end of history”. What Fukayama meant was that alternative systems of government had failed, leaving only liberal democracy and free markets. Fukayama believed that there was no alternative to this system. What we now know is that our system cannot continue, because it is unsustainable. Therefore there must be an alternative, we must transform our society. He called this the end of the end of history (!).

[Lorizael]

Perhaps they will stimulate interesting debate and maybe even spawn their own threads - though knowing this forum, I don't hold out much hope...

@ the notion that we should care what you and your friend think about some random talk.

[MOBIUS]

Nicholas Stern – 22nd May 2009

Rather than a speech, this session was in the format of a question and answer session between Stern and the host, followed by questions from the audience. At one point the host asked Stern about his own personal environmental record, I’ve not recorded this as it was a pointless question.

In the first part of his talk Stern referred to himself as an academic who happened to have spent 13 years working in public policy – he was the chief economist at the World Bank and then he worked at the EBRD before working on his review of the economics of climate change for the British government.

Q. Why is climate change an urgent problem?
A. Stern mentioned his connections with the developing world. He has worked in China and India. There is one particular village in Uttar Pradesh that he has known for 35 years, he goes back to visit at least once per year, more recently twice a year. He can see the effects of climate change which are already affecting them, the changes in rainfall that threaten their agriculture.

He spelled out some possible changes that may work towards a solution, for example paying 50% more for electricity, taking less flights, driving less. He cited reasons for optimism, for example the Obama administration. Obama is taking a long term view.

Q. Why should we start to mitigate climate change now, can’t we wait until later?
A. There is a ratchet effect, we are constantly adding to the stock of GHGs in the atmosphere. Currently CO2e is at 435ppm. In a few years it will be 460ppm. We have to make sure that emissions peak within the next 7-9 years, and keep the stock of GHGs below 500ppm CO2e, then bring it down from there.

If we fail to make a deal in Copenhagen, we create uncertainty in investors. Uncertainty in what they think the price of carbon will be, and uncertainty in the regulation over the next years. Hence investment in clean energy etc will be scared off. So there are two areas which provide a reason to hurry: The science and the politics.

The credit crunch is providing reasons for delay on acting on climate change. However, it should not, it should be seen as an opportunity to change. “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste”.

If we cut emissions by 50% in 2050 compared to 1990 levels, there is a 50% chance of more than 2C temperature rise, maybe more than a 50% chance. This is a very risky position to be in, due to our bad starting point. We should have woken up to the danger 30 years ago.

In terms of Copenhagen, it is wiser to go for something where you have a good chance of agreement. This is a political and economic judgement to make. If humanity starts out on the path of reducing emissions by 50% by 2050, this will be a very steep learning curve. With luck, 10 years of aiming in that direction will be the right time to raise our sights. We have an opportunity to throw away.

Q. What are the reasons for optimism?
The Climate Change Act and the Climate Change Committee in the UK is a great step forward. We can look forward to a greater sense of community when acting on climate change, making the necessary changes to our lifestyle.

Q. What temperature rise do you expect by the end of this century, if there is a deal on climate change and if there isn’t?
A. If there is a deal, then realistically 2 to 2.5 Celsius, under 2C is unlikely. Stern refused to answer what he thought the temperature rise would be if there was no deal.

Q. What happened with the carbon trading scheme, wasn’t it a failure?
A. The carbon trading scheme is young, only 3 to 4 years old. There were some crass errors made – too many permits issued. Nevertheless, Europe has built up expertise in trading.

More trading schemes should be set up. There is no other way to get finance to developing countries other than selling permits for carbon. There should be a price floor and tough conditions.

Q. Isn’t economic growth driving us to disaster? Shouldn’t the rich world head as rapidly as possible towards a steady state economy?
A. For a few decades growth in the developing world will be fundamental to lifting them out of poverty. In the rich world, to try to stop growth would undermine agreement on climate change, it would be politically unacceptable.

Growth will not continue forever. As Woody Allen said, eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end. But for much of this century the issue will be whether we can deliver low carbon growth, particularly in the developing world. Can we grow for the next few decades and beat this problem? Yes we can.

Q. Should we as consumers use our power to boycott companies that are not doing enough?
A. Yes, consumers should boycott where it is justified. But this is a powerful weapon and it should be used selectively to punish the worst behaviour. For example, a company that lies about its environmental credentials or a company that funds propaganda to justify its bad environmental record.

[MOBIUS]

@ the notion that we should care what you and your friend think about some random talk.

Whatever. I'm just trying to breathe life into this forum, whereas you appear to be helping it to fail with just the sorts of comments I expect from people here.

I know you're not going to read it, because frankly, you've proved you're not intellectually equiped to tackle the sorts of debates these subjects stimulate - hence your desire the put them down without even taking the effort to understand them (because you can't). You condemn yourself far more with your actions than I ever could, Lori...