Environmental hysteria poses real challenges

Tristan Mills’s excellent article on Environmental Hysteria highlights his concern that our future – even a future where we counter or adapt to global warming – is in danger. “We need sensible debate, not hysteria,” he writes. “We should not dismiss someone because they go against the orthodoxy, we should listen and argue based upon evidence.” I heartily agree.

One of the greatest dangers that we face as a society today is the polarisation of debate and the demonisation of opponents. In the environmental arena, this has manifested itself in virulent attacks on those who question the received orthodoxy. For example, to argue that Bjørn Lomborg was wrong and to point out errors in his work would have furthered debate and aided our understanding of environmental challenges. Instead, opponents brought a case in front of the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty in a deliberate effort to destroy him and his career. The lesson of this action was clear: heresy will lead to trial by fire.

Indeed, like a fire, a lot of the environmental debate has generated more heat than light. This is a tragedy, for no matter what the truth, it will not be found in closed-mindedness. At all times, all progress has begun with people who demurred from the orthodoxy of the day. Whether their opinions became the new truth or merely helped sharpen the arguments of those who were right all along, they served mankind. Thus I not only defend the freedom of speech but positively encourage it. I would urge a rational debate with David Irvine as much as I would have with Galileo; it was on a thousand years of tyranny that the great liberals cut their teeth.

I have found myself on the wrong end of this. Having questioned environmental hysteria myself, I have been branded a global warming sceptic (or sometimes, more strongly, a denier) and given the look that left-wing friends usually reserve for oil barons and Americans that vote Republican. In fact, I have never denied that planetary average temperatures are rising, that the effect may be anthropogenic or that it may lead to negative effects. What I have done is argue that we must still entertain the debate, that dirigiste solutions should not be our first recourse, and that there may be more urgent emergencies facing the human race that deserve priority. But nobody is listening; they think I drive a Humvee.

I’ve probably done myself few favours by adopting the Devil’s Advocate approach and confronting my interlocutors with counter-arguments rather than discussing the issues in the round. That is a matter of style, and perhaps one I need to address. Nonetheless, I would have hoped that people whom I called friends would have been capable of engaging in a mature debate.

Having said this, there is an important lesson for us all, and it is not just one of style. Those who wish to promote discussion are becoming victims of “triangulation”, a devious stratagem that involves associating an opposing view with other views that are so outlandish that third parties are alienated and so give you their support. The enviro-fascists (by which I specifically mean those who would use authoritarian means to pursue their environmental agenda, or conversely those would use the environment as a fig-leaf for tyranny) would like nothing more than to paint liberals, genuine sceptics and the open-minded as short-sighted carbon-junkies in league with Big Oil or blind to the obvious truth.

As a result, those who would question environmental orthodoxy – because they doubt the science, the risks, whether it is a priority or simply whether the solutions prescribed are the best available – are in danger of ending up on the wrong side of the history. For the sake of all our futures, they need to recapture the intellectual high ground. For those who question the very fact of environmental danger, only sound evidence and rigorous method will provide protection. For those who accept that there is cause for concern but who would seek to change priorities or approaches, it is important that they stake out their own ground within environmentalism. For both groups, a steely determination will be needed if they are to weather the storm of protest that will engulf them.

In this bitterest of public debates, emotion is running high. If we are all to prosper into the 21st century, heated words call for cool heads.

Text someone to tell them that reason has triumphed

Conspiracy theories and irrational fears irritate me, so it is with a sense of enormous joy that I read today that another Frankenstein delusion has been disproved.

An article on the Journal of the National Cancer Institute has conclusively disproved any link between mobile phone use and cancer.

This is no small study. 420,000 people who began using mobile phones between 1982 and 1995 were studied over 22 years; they had on average used their mobile for 8.5 years. The size of the sample enables incredibly accurate prediction. A control sample would have expected 15,001 cases of cancer, but in fact the group had a slightly lower incidence, with 14,249 cases of cancer being recorded.

The report concludes that “We found no evidence for an association between tumor (sic.) risk and cellular telephone use among either short-term or long-term users. Moreover, the narrow confidence intervals provide evidence that any large association of risk of cancer and cellular telephone use can be excluded.”

Perhaps we can at last put this ridiculous fear of science to bed. The future’s bright; the future’s orange!

The tyranny of the majority may condemn us all to gridlock

The Number 10 petitions website continues to fascinate me. I have resisted further temptation to sign up to stuff, even the delightful suggestion that we replace our stolid national anthem with Gold by Spandau Ballet.

Since my earlier criticism, which was picked up by Peter Riddell in The Times, I continue to be concerned that petitions imply apparent support for opinions with no opportunity to register dissent. However, this is not the end of the story. The petitions page could, in theory, garner in excess of 30m signatures for a particular policy. Would the Government then be compelled to legislate? If so, could this usher in the tyranny of the masses?

As a liberal I am concerned that democracy not excuse tyranny. The fact that a majority want something does not automatically justify it, especially if it is detrimental to others.

The petition that is concerning me at the moment is the most popular by far, out-polling even the repeal of the Hunting Act. An impressive 15,493 signatures have so far been appended to a petition calling upon the Government to Scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy.

The thinking behind this petition is confused and wrong. The text of the full petition states that “Road pricing is already here with the high level of taxation on fuel. The more you travel - the more tax you pay.” While this does address the global environmental cost in the form of the carbon and other pollutants produced, it does not address the other main environmental concern – congestion. It is as expensive for me to drive a mile across the Highlands as it is across Piccadilly, yet roads in the Highlands are far more costly per mile facilitated as they are rarely used, while urban driving causes more lethal pollution (it is concentrated and hovers around pedestrians and residential properties) and slows other traffic, costing time and thus money.

Then, in a startling example of counter logic, the petitioners conclude “Please Mr Blair - forget about road pricing and concentrate on improving our roads to reduce congestion.” In fact, only road pricing can reduce congestion, because congestion is a natural by-product of free access; consumption unlimited by cost will expand until the consumer can gorge no more. Compare two other commodities: Britain has been awash with food since the Corn Laws were abolished (a bout of ill-conceived war-rationing aside) because we pay per loaf, but every year we are issued with hose-pipe bans because we pay a flat fee for unlimited water. As long as we can use the road without having to pay for it, we will use it without constraint.

An what about road improvements? Transport policy has always been a shambles as it has failed to compete for tax-money with more immediate concerns (health, education, war). To forestall one traditional liberal comment, Land Value Taxation would go part way to convincing those who benefit to fund infrastructure. But there is still a compelling case for the user to pay, at lest for the running costs if not for building in the first place (in fact, few infrastructure projects and no railways can be built if they rely on recouping their costs from users, as the stories of Railtrack and the Channel Tunnel both amply demonstrate).

Sadly, this argument has yet to be broadly accepted. Too many people in Britain have become used to free and unlimited road use. Thus, as with so many other “free” services, we are bedazzled by the joy of unlimited consumption to the point of being blind to the real costs that appear in the gap between our gross and net salaries.

Thus I fear Number 10’s petitions page. Government has a duty to lead, and with its decision to consider road user pricing, this Government has shown uncharacteristic leadership. Yet it has form for caving in to populism. I would love to sign a counter-petition to debunk the growing impression that people oppose road user pricing. But if I am in the minority I hope the Government still presses ahead. It is effective, it is efficient and it is fair.

Over-regulating the smallest of businesses

As most fellow bloggers will agree, blogging does not pay the rent. Man cannot live off Ad Sense alone (a few of the blog-illuminati aside), and like most of us I have a day job. I try to keep it away from this site, however, lest my bosses take umbrage.

However, as a policy analyst in a business that is receiving increasing attention from the Government, I do come across some excellent examples of how government undermines small business.

Take today’s story. Childminders – as you may know – are self-employed individuals that care in their own homes for other people’s children. They are regulated by Ofsted and are usually allowed to care for up to six children under 8 at any time. They are the ultimate small business: one estimate found that barely half turn a profit. The Government is keen to promote childcare in general, both because it enables (particularly lone-) parents to return to work and because good quality childcare can help boost the cognitive and behavioural performance of children from poor backgrounds.

Yet childminders are constantly being strangled by petty regulations. A childminder contacted my employer today to complain that her local council had decided to start charging her to remove her household rubbish because she was conducting a business out of her premises. They were only aware of her existence because she contacted them to ask for a larger wheelie-bin. Many large domestic households do this, but this particular council likes to check why a larger bin is needed. When they discovered that she cares for a handful of other people’s children for profit in her household, they deemed her a business and are threatening to charge her accordingly.

This is an execrable example of over-regulation. Though she does conduct business in her house, it is still a domestic premises. It has not been re-designated for planning purposes; she is not VAT registered; and the waste she is producing is no greater (or qualitatively different) from what would be produced if she had a large family. Yet short-sighted bureaucrats are prepared to hit her with unnecessary and costly extra fees because their rigid rules pay no attention either to the specifics of her case or to the broader objectives of national or even local government.

This is not an isolated example. Other childminders have been told they have to meet the same kitchen standards as commercial premises, even though they are only preparing meals for a handful of children, much as my mother did for twenty years without Government interference. One can imagine the above council also requiring those of us selling items on eBay to pay commercial rates for refuse collection too – all those jiffy bags clearly put us in the same category as Primark and the cement works!

Small business in Britain is being increasingly squeezed by well-meaning but ill-conceived regulation. This focus on the little things is damaging important, over-arching objectives: competitiveness; child welfare; liberty. It stems from the unwillingness of those in authority to trust individuals to do what is in their best interests, which is generally what is in everyone’s best interests – a bad business would be a bankrupt business very quickly. Instead of letting individuals make these judgements, Government seeks to judge for them, but because they cannot be everywhere at once they must do so with blanket edicts that undermine the greatest asset in our society: the enormous amount of information that is distributed among individuals.

This is hard to change; Governments of all stripes struggle against the temptation to meddle in our affairs. Se be glad you’re not making a profit out of your blog. If you were, the bureaucrats would be after you!

The nearest thing to a free lunch

The proverbial free lunch may be a myth, but it appears that there is at least cheap wine with which to wash it down.

A week ago I was forwarded a Threshers voucher offering 40% off wine. With my usual cyber-scepticism I did nothing with it, assuming that it was a hoax and the shop assistant in Threshers would mock me for my gullibility.

So I was pleased to be forwarded a link to the business section of The Times which confirmed all my hopes. Rhys Blakely writes that "Threshers, the off-licence, is being swamped by booze bargain-hunters after an online discount voucher that offers money off alcohol was downloaded by millions of internet users."

Sadly, I don't seem to be able to attach the pdf file of the voucher, otherwise I would share it with you. If anybody knows how I can attach documents other than pictures to this blog I would be eternally grateful (there's a voucher for 40% off at Threshers in it for you). Otherwise, you can try trawling the Web, though I suspect by now Threshers are racing around eliminating the evidence.

An excellent use of £20bn

I'm struggling with Trident. Oh, it might be an expensive virility symbol that will ironically prove our impotence if we ever are attacked, but it is an unpredictable world out there and unilateral disarmament may not be the best policy in a rapidly proliferating world. I remember once trying to de-escalate an aggressive situation by sitting down, an act that resulting in my being kicked in the head!

(No, that doesn't explain any of my views!)

However, as this video shows, it does also provide an excellent example of the difference in the speed of light and of sound. Perhaps we could run school trips for Physics students to Faslane and conduct test firings so that they can calculate how far away the missile was when it was launched.

President Blair? He wants it as much as we do!

It is a criticism often levelled at over-mighty Prime Ministers that they secretly wish they could be President. It is a claim often made of Tony Blair, and I recall Margaret Thatcher being similarly accused. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

The reason for this misconception lies in the apparently vast powers of American presidents. French presidencies can also appear to omnipotent, as governments are appointed from The Élysée Palace without their members needing to be members of the National Assembly. One assumes that the constitutional presidencies of Germany, Italy and Israel are not the model of which critics are thinking when they accuse British prime ministers of dreaming of a presidency.

In fact, while American presidents appear mighty from across the Atlantic, they have far less power within their realms than a British prime minister. The power and position of a British prime minister lies in the fact that he has (barring the occasional bout of back-bench uppitiness) a majority in the legislature. Thus, executive and legislature are intrinsically wed in a manner that would be alien in the United States.

As last month’s congressional elections should bring home to us, presidents risk seeing their power checked by rival legislatures. Indeed, despite George Bush’s good fortune in having a “friendly” congress for most of his administration, even the republican-controlled House and Senate occasionally blocked his plans, notably over social service reform and immigration.

By comparison, a British Prime Minister is free to do almost anything he wishes. His parliamentary majority and the weakness of the second chamber enable him to pass almost any legislation. Budgets are not picked over and amended, but nodded through by compliant MPs. Vast areas of Government do not even require parliament, as they are still subject to the Royal Prerogative. And the Prime Minister is never personally subject to a serious vote: rather than having to face the electorate, one-on-millions, the Prime Minister has the comfort of a pocket borough to ensure that he, at least, will always be returned. He can stuff the upper house with his placement, pick his Cabinet and appoint judges, ambassadors and senior officials without their ever being questioned by an appointments committee. Offences to liberty such as the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill would never be possible were Britain to have a written constitution, which a British presidency would necessitate.

No, you may rest assured that Tony Blair is quite happy being a humble Prime Minister. Let others have the titular supremacy, along with the administrative headaches of constitutional government and the checks and balances on their power. Let them face re-election in their own right. For British Prime Ministers, it’s far preferable to be a mere servant of the Crown.