Guilt & Revelation in Climate Change

Now that many an environmentalist’s hopes have been dashed by December’s debacle in Copenhagen, we can legitimately ask what chance do we have now of averting climate chaos? On the surface of it the arguments are quite specious. If global warming is happening due to human burning of fossil fuels then our failure to act will be catastrophic. If global warming isn’t happening then all the things we are being asked to do will, though unnecessary, at least result in a more habitable and pleasant world to hand on to future generations. It’s a win win situation. But those who don’t see it as money well spent are determined to scupper any deal that threatens their short-term profits.

But perhaps we need to look a bit deeper than this and ask what it is in the human psyche that prevents us from reaching agreement on what is plainly the most vital issue of our times? The first problem, says leading climate scientist Mike Hulme, author of the recently published “Why We Disagree About Climate Change”, is that climate change has come to mean different things to different people. To some it is a scientific debate, to others a rallying cry for disparate social movements. Some see it as a justification for the commodification of the atmosphere through creating market based carbon trading mechanisms, others as a threat to global security, while many in the developing world view it as another aspect of neo-colonialism designed to hold back the development and ascendancy of non-white races much in the same way family planning was viewed 20 to 30 years ago. “Climate change can be framed, can be moulded, in many different ways,” he says. “Sometimes these frames complement each other, yet often they appear to conflict.” But just as much as we frame these debates, climate change, with its overarching, all pervasive issues, is framing our lives – like a devil and an angel on each shoulder – affecting every decision we make and defining our aspirations, ambitions and beliefs.

Hulme leads us on a journey through all the physical, social, cultural, political and spiritual ways that climate change affects us and concludes, that just as much as our physical development from the beginnings of evolution have been shaped by climate change so too now are its challenges determining how we as a species and our concomitant social systems will evolve. And he concludes, without minimising the dangers or discounting the sacrifices that we may have to make, that it is the defining ethos for our time, one that can be as much a source of inspiration, imagination and empowerment as a real and present danger. We may continue to argue, he says, but those disagreements can lead us to enlightenment.

Another book that gave me pause for thought and reflection over the Christmas period was “Guilt Trip” by Alex Hesz and Bambos Neophytou. Both successful in the branding and marketing spheres they explore how ethical and social corporate responsibility agendas have been perceived, enacted and compromised as we learned to minimise our fears and assuage our guilt to the tune of corporate devised jingles. It is highly valuable to have an insiders account of how brands have manipulated their own images in the face of anti-consumerism and climate change even though the book is written in such a blasé style their points are sometimes hard to grasp amid jocular asides and over baked allusions. Their central argument is that though brands have reflexively incorporated messages to alleviate consumer guilt within their marketing, they have been found out by a savvy public that have boned up on the internet and have learned to sort the greenwashed image from the hard fact. They predict a demise of such marketing as lies become exposed and brands tarnished. Their assertion is that the new corporate strategy for survival will have to be learning to tell the truth. Whether we believe it when we hear it, however, is another matter.


Why We Disagree About Climate Change, Mike Hulme
Cambridge University Press, £17.99
ISBN: 978-0-521-89869

Guilt Trip, Alex Hesz & Bambos Neophytou
John Wiley & Sons Ltd. £14.99
ISBN: 978-0-470-74622

What does a vote for the Greens mean?

I attended the launch of the Whitstable Green Party last week, partly out of curiosity as to why Whitstable, as fairly middle class and liberal a community as you are likely to encounter, had not until now had its own branch of the Greens. My curiosity was soon assuaged by this rather desultory affair. Consisting of 10 attendees, all white and over 45, who mostly seemed to know each other already, I was soon convinced that this particular part of North Kent was not going to stage a Green revolution any time soon to put an end to 147 years of unbroken Tory rule – a Guinness world record for the longest time an electoral seat has not changed hands.

There was a talk by the PPC for Tunbridge Wells about their social housing policy, what they would do to reform schools, the slow food campaign and reducing the built up areas speed limit to 20mph – all very worthy but hardly earth shattering initiatives. And the PPC for Canterbury gave a 40-minute talk on Localisation versus Globalisation that regurgitated all the well-worn arguments that have hardly changed in over 10 years. Everyone growing their own and getting about by bicycle is all very well for a reimagined pastoral land but as solutions to food security and energy independence for a humanity hungry for all the trappings of modernity such measures fall somewhat short of what is required.

As you would expect I’m a great supporter of Green ideals and the Green Party have been getting my vote for the last 20 years, but in a land full of campaigning organisations that seem able to galvanise support for a whole range of issues, not least the environment, they seem unable to translate that zeal into electoral success. Admittedly they are caught between a rock and a hard place. Labelled long ago as a single-issue party they have tried hard to make themselves electable by establishing a whole raft of social policies to address the concerns of voters who do not have the environment as their number one issue. As a result their message has become diluted and, as the main stream parties have co-opted the environmental agenda, left them somewhat floundering for attention.

Now we all know that campaigning is the exciting confrontation of big issues while politics is the boring nitty-gritty. Some of the zest for radical change is bound to get lost when it comes to the minutiae of implementation, but the Greens failure to put out a simple clear message is loosing them swathes of natural support. If they focused on one clear policy such as a solar panel for every roof and a wind turbine in every garden - call it “Renewable Energy for All” - then at least people would know their vote is potentially going to do them some good rather than be a gesture of altruistic self sacrifice.

Part of their lack of lustre seems to be their inability to embrace modernity. They are keen on homespun solutions but wary of techno fixes. Science is the province of big business with their genetically engineered and nuclear agendas, and while mobile phones and laptops are great campaigning tools it is appalling that they are upgraded every two years for the latest model. As a result young people who’s ideals might galvanise them to become activists for Friends of the Earth or Plane Stupid, are disillusioned when their desire for an electric vehicle is viewed as reborn consumerism where battery technology is eating up rare metals that are extracted at immense cost to the environment. Yes we all need to take into account the environmental costs of what we consume, but simply telling people not to consume is not a solution. All of us becoming like Mahatma Ghandi is not going to happen. We need to find ways to provide for people’s needs while minimising the ecological impact. And science and technology is the method to discover these means, as the recent Green It Expo aptly demonstrated.

With an election in the offing this coming year it would be great to see the Greens come out with a strong clear message that gives people some hope for the future. They need to ditch the complicated intellectual arguments that might underpin the rational for their social policies – save that for their internal policy debates – in favour of a single message that gets across to ordinary citizens and offers them a tangible and obtainable benefit. Otherwise a vote for the Greens will remain, as it has for me, a vague longing for a better world or a ‘none of the above’ option.

The demise of print & can Toffs save the planet?

The most over used term of the last couple of years has to be ‘The Perfect Storm’. Ever since the movie of that name starring George Clooney it has become the preferred way to describe situations where diverse factors converge to provoke a disaster. So it is with some hesitation I use it to describe the circumstance of magazine publishers in this time when the omnipotent tentacles of the internet are prising readers and advertising revenue away from hard copy publications. Paid for newspapers and magazines have for some time been feeling the pinch from the plethora of free titles that have sprung up in recent years – of which Green Events is a prime example – and now the freak wave of recession has broken over the bows and threatened to swamp the presses entirely leaving us in a digital world free of inky fingers and the rustle of fresh newsprint.

Though hardly a week passes without the news of another magazine or publisher going to the wall, I, for one, do not believe that hard copy publications will disappear entirely. There will always be a place for relaxing in bed with a good book, for sitting in the shade engrossed in a magazine article or leaving the ring stains of your cappuccino on the property section – tactile sensations that the digital world has yet to emulate. But it is likely that the variety and availability of print publications is set to decline by a long way yet before we reach a threshold where they will stabilise as the pleasurable but anachronistic luxury they will be perceived as by a generation weaned on web browsing, texted content, and pod casts.

Whether this will this be to the detriment of the quality of writing and the literacy and attention spans of future generations it is impossible, and probably presumptuous, to predict, but what I do see occurring is a sharp divide between serious in-depth storytelling and the tittle-tattle that passes for news in the celebrity obsessed media of today. If one’s interest is in the gossip and superficial news bites which merely confirm preconceived attitudes and prejudices then gradually more and more of this information will be gleaned from digital sources and the hardcopy rags that have made infotainment their specialty - while pushing products that assuage our vanity - will sink into terminal decline. This is why Murdoch and Son are so worried at the moment. Having specialised in turning their publications into purveyors of drivel they are now concerned how to get people to pay for accessing suchlike online.
Meanwhile serious reportage, the kind you have to sit down and give your undivided attention to, that challenges your preconceptions, that teaches you something new about the world we live in, will, along with literature and academic studies, maintain a hardcopy presence. Publications such as The Economist, perhaps because of the current focus on the recession, are thriving, while lads mags are dying a death. Similarly, in the green sector, Permaculture magazine, with its emphasis on DIY sustainable solutions is proving a recession buster. Serious publications that protect their content and the value of subscribing to the hard copy by limiting or charging for online access will, I believe, find a balance between print and digital that will enable them to survive into the foreseeable future.


Unfortunately such hopes do not apply to The Ecologist magazine which ceased publication with its July issue after nearly 40 years in print to continue solely as an campaigning website resource. Though this has been spun as a positive move enabling the publication to reduce its carbon footprint and reach a far greater audience online it is also undoubtedly as much to do with the recession and its former editor and main source of funding Zac Goldsmith distancing himself from the title. He is now devoting his energies and his financial resources to preparing for a parliamentary career as the shoe-in Conservative candidate for the constituency of Richmond Park, where he will undoubtedly oust Susan Kramer. Somewhat synchronistically his uncle, Teddy Goldsmith, environmentalist firebrand and founder of the The Ecologist along with other institutions such as the Green Party and Survival International, passed away in August.

Though undoubtedly Zac helped rescue The Ecologist at a time when his uncle’s increasing flirtations with the far right threatened to destroy its credentials, and it has acted as a springboard for his political aspirations, it is now obviously surplus to requirements and a drain on finances, and I fully expect its effectiveness as an influential voice to dwindle as its online presence merges and morphs with all the other campaigns and commentaries that exist primarily in cyberspace.

One can hardly blame Zac for this – he has done as much for the environmental cause as any Eton alumni. He could have chosen the more familiar routes of his peers such as to go into the city and participate in the timeworn practice of depriving the peasantry of the fruits of their hard-earned labours, or he could have never lifted a finger for any worthy cause and become an international playboy cushioned by the oodles of dosh left to him by his father. Instead he has admirably taken up the torch of environmentalism from his uncle to pursue a path toward political influence. Given his background it is no surprise that he has taken the strategic decision to throw in his lot with the soon to be labelled ‘New Conservatives’ of David Cameron rather than assign himself to the potential political wilderness of the Green Party, but it does invite a tantalising debate about the strength of Tory environmental commitments amid the practicalities of their political aspirations. Can toffs, in other words, save the planet?

I for one, remain to be convinced, but Zac will be allowing his credentials to be examined at St James’s Piccadilly at the end of November - see Highlights page 4 - where you may make up your own mind whether or not a rich man can indeed enter the kingdom of heaven.

Meanwhile, if you are at all desirous to keep this poor man’s publication afloat and prevent it becoming assigned to the wilderness of cyberspace you can turn to page 10 where a hard copy subscription form requires the application of pen and ink, a pair of scissors, a stamp, and enclosure in an envelope together with a cheque or some of the folding stuff. Terribly old fashioned I know but if you are determined to be modern you can click your way to our website and be a real pay pal.

Facing our fate with dignity.

There was a time, not so long ago, when there would have been widespread panic and chaos in response to a pandemic of the proportions of the current swine flu virus. Indeed, in some parts of the world, reactions have been somewhat irrational. But here in Britain amidst the sympathy for the unfortunate few victims who have suffered its worse effects and concern for friends and family the attitude has been largely business as usual along with a mild confusion about what we’re supposed to do.

It is a testament to how civilised our society has become that we are able to take such episodes in our stride. So far we are trusting the scientific analysis and the government advice. There has been no panic buying, no locking ourselves away from outside contact, no shunning of victims, but one wonders how much more serious the situation would have to be before the veneer of calm rational response would succumb to the vigour of primaeval gut reactions. We all know that in extreme situations, no matter how rational and calm we purport to be, that instinct tends to take over, and it is a strong willed individual who does not succumb, when those around us begin to panic.

So perhaps now – before any impending crises starts dictating our impulses – is a good time to reflect and establish in ourselves what our response will be. We all like to think that our higher instincts will guide us to make appropriate responses to whatever threatens us, but what if lack of food or sleep or some other vital need where affecting us? Would we still be able to remain calm? And what tools and practices would we use to overcome our base responses? Have we sufficiently inculcated a still quiet centre to our being that no amount of pressure can provoke us into blind panic? Would we meditate, would we pray, would we simply take a deep breath?

It may not be the flu virus, it may not be a widespread crisis, it may be something small and personal, but there comes a time in all our lives when our character is tested. And what generally controls our response is how we have lived our lives up to this point. If we have lived lives obsessed with petty affairs, in a celebrity obsessed Twittering haze, with nary an effort to improve and inform ourselves, then we may not be best placed to deal with impending catastrophe. But, if we have had the foresight to learn some vital life skills and to examine our fundamental nature, if we have considered all the possible dangers we may face instead of just pushing them to one side, if we have invested as much in our real communities as we do in our ‘virtual’ ones, and if we have sufficient awareness and conscience to be prepared to face our fate with dignity then, dear reader, we may, as a species, be capable of meeting and adapting to the dangers, of which swine flu is only the latest, that this not yet decade old century has in store for us.

True value in a world without values.

The sale recently of a rare blue diamond for a world record price of nine and a half million dollars prompted me to wonder about the perverse way we choose to place value on meaningless things and undervalue the things that are really important. This was the same day I saw in the Ecologist that as an attempt to ridicule the carbon trading system they were running a essay competition on how to price the last tonne of carbon that tips the balance and triggers catastrophic global warming. Given that diamonds are made of carbon I wondered if the two could be equated. Currently a tonne of carbon trades at about 14 euros or 19 US dollars. This means that this blue diamond could be exchanged for a permit to burn 5 hundred thousand tons of CO2. I don’t know how much coal that relates to or how much carbon is sequestered in that diamond but it doesn’t take a scientist to tell me that something is fundamentally skewed in our perception of value in this crazy world. Bear in mind that diamonds are fundamentally abundant – nearly every household in the Western world has at least one – it is only the control of supply that diamond producers such as De Beers operates that keeps their price high.

I know it is easy to make analogies between the excesses of materialistic consumption and the tragedies of poverty and deprivation that abound in this world. And I know that there is a glib reference attached to environmentalists as the hairshirt brigade whenever we deride profligate waste - but really people - let’s try and get a grip. If there is no breathable air left all the jewels in the world will be exposed as the worthless rocks they are.

THERE IS A LOT OF hoo-hah at the moment about MP’s expenses and so far nearly everyone caught with their fingers in the honey pot have blamed the system. They created a system based upon them being on their honour and then relentlessly abused it. Then they have the gall to blame the system. These are the same MP’s who roasted the bankers over hot coals when their profligate bonus culture and lax lending was derided for bringing about the banking crises. Now they have lost all moral authority. How can they pretend to be able to hold anyone to account? And without politicians who can be held to a higher standard how is our country to function with any kind of credence? How can citizens and subjects of the United Kingdom be expected to not take advantage of any loophole or scam available to them? And what comfort will fraudsters take from knowing they are no worse that the Douglas Hoggs and Elliot Morleys of this world?


I HAVE ALWAYS SEEN Gordon Brown as a well meaning if rather demurring politician. I’ve no doubt that he strives always to do the right thing, it’s just that he can’t seem to do this without first spending hours wringing his hands and shuffling his papers as he tries to micro-manage his response. He comes across as unable to think on his feet, incapable of responding to any situation with spontaneity and seeming to distrust his own instincts. This tendency is what allowed him to be sidelined by Tony Blair back in the day when he was favourite to succeed John Smith as leader of the Labour Party. Blair was a brash opportunist uncluttered by self-doubt and he browbeat Brown into deferring. It is a mistake he has been compensating for ever since. His problem is that though he may have strong socialist principles and be a capable manager he lacks the gut instincts that make a good leader or the warmth that inspires loyalty.

He and his party have overstayed their welcome – not least because he was never directly elected as prime minister - and our government can have no legitimacy until the present lot – including the swindlers on both sides of the fence - are put to the test at the ballot box. Brown will try to hang on as best he can until he’s forced to call an election next spring but I predict now that the momentum of events is too great for him to delay beyond this autumn. Perhaps by then people will be sufficiently discontent to vote for principle rather than practicality and elect some Greens rather than the tired old lot who will only continue fuelling the gravy train they have ridden for so long. Even in a world as topsy turvy as ours they represent very poor value.

Capitalists, who needs them?

Some say that our economy is a reflection of Darwinian struggle. A survival of the fittest contest where weak and inefficient systems lose out to more competitive and aggressive innovations. Free marketeers have long argued that this is for the greater good; that people all over the world will benefit from market deregulation; that the free flow of capital around the world will create more jobs and lift millions out of poverty, while cheaper goods and services will help people to aspire to the lifestyles portrayed in so many glossy advertisements.

At the moment, with their wonderful system on its knees, they may not be crowing too loud, but already there are worrying bleatings that they are beginning to spin this virtual collapse as a mere correction and that the capitalist model, somewhat chastened and more modest, will re-emerge and prove its resilience. After all they say, with communism thoroughly discredited and Islamic non-usurious systems under assault, it’s the only show in town.

But is it really?

As Dawkins explains in his seminal ‘The Selfish Gene’ survival depends as much on cooperation as on competition. In fact if a species is too aggressive it quickly exhausts its environment and precipitates its own demise. A danger we face if we continue to blindly embrace the capitalist model.

Last month I attended the launch of the Co-Operative Society’s new advertising campaign and became further convinced that there is a way of doing business that does not require wrecking the planet and destroying lives and communities for the much vaunted ‘greater good’ of the capitalist model. Their banking section is currently riding high with record new accounts and deposits during 2008. Though they readily admit that much of this is a flight to safety away from discredited institutions such as Northern Rock and RBS, it is a fact that their sound policies have left them unexposed to the sub-prime debacle and turned them into a safe haven for people who prefer their banks not to speculate recklessly with their savings.

Over 3 million people in the UK are currently Coop members and are able to share in a profit dividend that grows the more they bank, insure, borrow or spend with the Coop. At the same time they can do it with a clean conscience. The Coop bank has long trumpeted their ethical practices, not lending to arms traders or investing in dictatorial regimes – indeed it could be said of the Coop group as a whole that they were the original instigators of ethical practices such as fair-trade and cruelty free cosmetics - but it makes you wonder what all the other banks are supposed to be? Profit machines that entice people’s investments through greed and then discard them when the speculative bubble bursts?

I sometimes think that we should have let them go – not bailed them out with billions of taxpayers money so that they could survive and revive to swindle us another day. It would have been enough, in my opinion, for the government to guarantee our savings and insure our mortgages. The banks and the corporations themselves should then have been allowed to follow their own dictums and gone down us unfit to survive, proving themselves to be what they truly are – an evolutionary dead end which should be allowed to become extinct before they drag the rest of us and the planet down with them.

During Argentina’s economic collapse, workers moved quickly to set up coops to maintain the businesses that their capitalist owners abandoned as they withdrew their funds abroad. Many of these businesses continue and thrive to this day. Which just proves the capitalists need us more than we need them.

Flying in the face of history.

There are two schools of history - one that believes it is the story of the powerful people of the age and that what they do is what matters. The other is a sociological view that the actions of individuals on a mass scale determine the course of history; that the culture and the myriad changes adopted wholesale by everyday people is the real story. The truth is probably somewhere in between - but where does the balance lie? Are our political leaders controlling and manipulating public opinion to their own ends or are they ultimately responsive to the will of the people. There are arguments to support both theories and whichever you believe is correct is probably what determines your attitude towards political activism.

If you believe that politicians have the power and we can have very little effect on their decision making then you are probably in that majority known as the bewildered herd who get on with their lives as best they can while tutting and moaning about how terrible things are but feeling powerless to influence anything. They may occasionally be inspired to act such as on the marches to prevent the Iraq War. But the failure of this to prevent us going to war merely retrenched the attitude that protesting is futile – the powers that be will do what they want regardless.

Then there is the small, dedicated band of social activists who hold on to the hope that they can bring about change. They are often bolstered by such aphorisms as Margaret Meade’s, “Never doubt a small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has”, or Arthur Schopenhauer’s, "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident". And it cannot be doubted that these blessed few who act as our conscience have a proud tradition of incrementally progressing social change despite the opposition of the powerful and the inertia of the majority.

What is important to understand here is that often it is not simply a case of browbeating the politicians into submission by the force of moral argument but of persuading the self serving majority to acquiesce to change. And sometimes to accept sacrifices. Politicians are usually concerned to do what they believe is in the best interest of the majority of their constituents who mostly demand jobs and money. If we take the case of Heathrow airport expansion the government believes that the commerce and jobs this creates will be of greater benefit to the majority of people than the small mitigation of climate change canceling it would achieve. They simply believe that the economic argument is compelling and that their climate change policies can be compromised when they stand in the way of much needed economic progress. They make assurances that they can compensate for the carbon increase by encouraging efficiencies elsewhere.

Underlying this, of course, is the fact that the majority of people want to fly. If the demand for international travel were not there the argument would be moot. And even in recessionary times lots of businesses are queuing up to invest in the expansion and lots or people are, of course, in need of work.

It seems when campaigns fail to compel politicians into doing the right thing it is not because they are immoral but because they are catering to the demands of the bewildered herd. The only way we can deter aviation expansion is if we were to persuade people to fly less. The best way to do that is to charge them more. But taxing aviation is something the government is reluctant to do because- you guessed it - it will discourage aviation expansion and the ever-increasing commerce it brings. And so it goes on.

I remember well that the decision to grant permission for the building of Terminal 5 after the longest public enquiry to date was laced with assurances that it would not lead to a third runway. Yet a friend of mine who works in the industry confided to me shortly after construction started that a third runway would soon follow and after that a sixth terminal. He said it with all the assurance of a fait accompli. So far it has come to pass.

The challenge for campaigners then is to compel the politicians to go against what they perceive as the greater good while convincing the docile majority that the inconvenience of flying less and paying more when they do is a good thing. Campaigns such as this often seem forlorn because we have to swim upstream, against the imperatives of jobs and money. We’re battling for a world were people can live well but modestly within environmental limits and it cannot be done unless enough people are convinced this can be achieved and will be for their benefit. It is a fight for hearts and minds rather than just the bare bones of economic necessities. It is a propaganda war in which the issues of jobs and development come head to head with environmental concerns to determine which is for the greater good.

With the economy in free fall these are days when momentous change is possible. There are many disillusioned with the current system and questioning why they have bought into all its false promises. Many are willing to experiment with new economic models that don’t rely on total environmental exploitation and lead to endless cycles of boom and bust. These are days of great challenge and great opportunity. I would recommend you surf to truecosteconomics.org as a good place to start.

Let us hope when this chapter in history is written it will be one where the pressure of individual actions moved people of power to acquiesce to change and not where politicians shepherded a docile populous to its inevitable doom.

What are you celebrating? What have you got?

Everyone else has had their tuppence worth on the ascent of Barack Obama, so I may as well... Great though his promise is one almost wishes to hold on to this moment and suspend progress because we are bound to be disappointed when he inevitably falls short of our expectations. Wars will not cease, injustice will not disappear and poverty will not be eradicated. Carbon dioxide will not miraculously sequester itself. My favourite comment was the Matt cartoon that appeared the day after Obama’s election of a groundsman hammering in a sign next to a fountain outside the Whitehouse which read, ‘Please don’t walk on the water.’

Humour or pre-emptive pessimism aside we can console ourselves with the fact that after Bush almost anyone would have been an improvement. Curiously if it had not been for the eight terrible years of Bush’s incompetence the conditions would not have been right for Obama to accede. Without the travesty of Bush, less people would have been willing to stick their neck out and risk the radical choice that Obama represents. Which just goes to prove the old adage that sometimes things have to get worse before they get better.


With Christmas approaching and the search for suitable presents underway my thoughts inevitably turn to the question of where do I stand with this whole God thing anyway. Having been brought up a Catholic - a primitive faith I have long renounced - it is very hard to turn my back entirely on this Christian ritual, however distasteful I find all the paraphernalia of worship of a supreme being that surrounds it. In non Christian countries Xmas has been successfully marketed as a secular festival involving Christmas lights and silvery trees and Santa on his sleigh with nary a mention of the virgin birth of a long prophesied redemptive martyr. Maybe in some eyes this has turned Christmas into a soulless festival of conspicuous consumption, but this is as nothing to the chagrin of the poor pagans who witnessed their winter solstice celebrations usurped by a monotheistic cult.

One friend of mine, an atheist Dutchman of Calvinist extraction in a Spartan spirit of self-denial bans all mention or participation in our curious ritual of enforced jollity amidst the darkest days of winter. He won’t give or accept any presents, and refuses invitations to Christmas dinner and if you so much as offer him a mince pie…
I admire his tenacity in being true to the letter of his beliefs – on non-beliefs as it were – but don’t envy him the self-imposed exile from the festivities all around. It is a natural human tendency to want to come together in celebration, and, whatever the pretext, giving presents and sharing in abundance reinforces human bonds and brightens up the gloom of deep winter.

Despite my natural aversion to organised religion and my affection for humanist principles I cannot, however, fully grasp the nettle and reject entirely the concept of God or the possibility of a spiritual aspect to existence. Secular humanist beliefs are all very well and indeed, if we are to have a fair and just society, are the only basis on which human relationships should be judged. But without a spiritual connection how meaningless and futile our lives would seem amidst the enormity and mystery of the universe. And without the rituals and rites of passage that religious belief affords us how do we bond together and imbue our lives with purpose?

There is no doubting that religion is a powerful cohesive force and its rituals help people to transcend their petty differences. It also provides a moral framework which – at its best – inspires us towards charitable acts and personal sacrifices for the benefit of others. Some would say that humanism is also capable of this, but without the practices of prayer, meditation or devotion that reinforce these impulses how is such a moral imperative to be maintained?
Furthermore for all the high ethics of Humanism it is too often codified in legal terminology that does little to inspire the passionate adherence of religious belief. You might agree with its lofty principles as expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but such cerebral acknowledgement doesn’t necessarily mean you ‘love thy neighbour’ with the proactive charitable concern of a true believer.

If not for secular humanism, however, we would still be living in a society constrained by religious bigotry, as indeed many parts of the world still are. Yet religion and religious convictions still have a powerful hold over the human psyche and show no sign of abating, and humanism’s offering of rationalism and psychology is not sufficient for most people to supplant the wondrous and charismatic seductions of devotion.

So, if for no other reason than to fulfil a psychological need, we yearn for a connection to the divine, for experiences that lift us out of the humdrum towards the transcendental. The oneness and unity that we might experience at rock concerts or sports events might partially substitute for this; many readers of Green Events will have delved into shamanism, drumming circles or 5 Rhythms Dance classes as a way to satiate this vague urge for spiritual connection; but the problem is how do you open the door to rational and intelligent religious inquiry without all the superstitious and prejudice that usually comes with it gatecrashing the party and provoking hardened sceptics to once again throw the baby out with the bathwater? Once we accept a need for religion, or some kind of spiritual practice, how do we stop that leading to situations where we judge others based upon certain arbitrary beliefs and end up persecuting people for believing otherwise?

So it is clear that for Humanism to succeed and prosper as a true vocation it needs some form of spiritual practice that instills a sense of duty to our fellow man and maintains a inspirational connection to the divine. But we cannot allow religious prejudices or moral constraints to pollute the rule of law and infringe upon the human rights that apply to every person regardless of religion, race, nationality or sexual orientation.

Which leads us to the paradoxical conclusion – for Humanism to inspire deeper conviction we must live our lives as though there is a God even if we do not believe. And conversely, for religious doctrine not to infect proper justice, we must live as though there is no god even if we believe there is. With that little koan to chew on over the festive period, I wish you all a very merry whatever it is you choose to celebrate.

Oct/Nov 08

Me Cynical? Never!


It was only a matter of time before the backlash against going green got started. After all for the average citizen the main effect of all our environmental campaigning has been to raise his taxes and burden him with the chore of separating his waste into about 20 different categories. Far from being a vote winner environmental promises are now deterring voters who view them as another means to tax and over regulate their lives.

It also must raise the hackles a bit when we see yet another politician or campaigner jetting off to the Arctic to highlight the dangers of climate change. Scientific expeditions we can tolerate, but disaster tourism for photo ops is like picking at a scab to prevent it from healing. How much more effective would it be if they just stayed home and planted a tree instead? Isn’t it perverse that all this energy is being consumed trying to persuade people to reduce their energy consumption? And we have no end of new books and products being incessantly marketed to help us reduce our ecological footprint. Surely we’d all be better off if we did nothing and said nothing about climate change and concentrated our energy on more purposeful things like building air tight, radiation proof, survival pods where we will eke out a subterranean existence until the earth is habitable again. We’re not quite there yet, but unless we start taking our plight seriously and not see it as an inconvenient burden we’re anxious to shift on to someone else’s shoulders, we may well be soon.

If, as regular readers might note, I am sounding more cynical than usual, it’s because I’ve just finished reading ‘Fifty Ways to F##K the Planet’ which turns the whole ecological agenda on its head by encouraging us to continue doing exactly what we’ve been doing to get into this mess in the first place.

The premise of the book is that we really don’t give a damn and we should stop pretending we do. Sporting our true colours we can relish in undisguised glee as we chalk up another species extinction or environmental catastrophe. But, hold on, that’s exactly what we’re doing already – so why the wringing of hands and the beating of chests?

Though obviously a tongue in cheek endeavour to shame us out of our torpor one of the many things this book makes us aware of is the unintended consequences of seemingly benign policies and the disastrous consequences of some well-meaning environmental actions. The ALF protest releases of farmed salmon, for example, that have gone on to compete with and denude wild stock through interbreeding and disease. Importing foreign flora for avid gardeners keen to make an impression or fauna for exotic pet lovers is also a short cut to environmental devastation. Introducing invasive species bring you extra brownie points as this book facetiously encourages us to hasten along to total environmental breakdown. Taking care of people’s health by sending smokers out of doors has of course resulted in a proliferation of patio heaters, which really does prove the path to hell is paved with good intentions.

Other suggested ways to scupper progress towards sustainability include how to block wind farms under the aegis of protecting areas of natural beauty or to propose spurious ways to absorb carbon dioxide such as disposing of human waste in the world’s oceans to encourage algae bloom - a practice that only increases the prevalence of oceanic ‘dead zones’.

Most importantly ‘Fifty Ways to F##K the Planet’ contains valuable advice on how to mount a credible pr campaign convincing everybody about how much you care and how much you are doing to deter, for instance, global warming when in fact the opposite is true. This tactic allows many corporations such as Shell and Rio Tinto to continue plundering the planet to their heart’s content. The prevalence of such greenwashing reached it apotheosis with BAE Systems trumpeting of its new ‘greener’ bullet tipped with tungsten instead of lead.

As Chapter 40 emphasises, the best way to contribute to an attitude of ‘what’s the use’ is of course to pour scorn on environmental concerns and cast sceptical scrutiny over any attempt to save the planet. A typical chestnut of this sort of thinking is that it will cost too much. Saving the planet will destroy our economy. Never mind that the US can find 700 billion to bail out its subprime induced economic collapse, there’s not enough cash to save a bit of rainforest or build flood defences.

Well with my increasingly cynical attitude toward the human predilection to avoid responsibility wherever possible, I certainly feel like I’m doing my bit to spread cynicism and despair. Let’s hope this book is the antidote.
Peter McCaig

‘Fifty Ways to F##K the Planet’ by Mark Townsend and David Glick £12.99 (Collins) ISBN 978-0-00727988-3.

Aug/Sept 08

Copenhagen ‘09 - Our last best hope to avert climate chaos.

The current belt tightening all of us are experiencing may be good news for the environment in that it is encouraging us to cut back on excess consumption and reduce, reuse and repair wherever possible. But the fact that 2 million of us still jetted off on foreign holidays the minute the schools went on recess shows we still suffer from a lemming-like symptom of going with the flow despite its obvious trajectory. Much maligned creatures as lemmings are – they don’t actually throw themselves off cliffs – I’m afraid the same cannot be said of humans. As the old saying goes ‘genius may have its limits, but stupidity is infinite’.

We all know that sooner or later we will have to pay for our indulgences but despite the great strides towards sustainable living that have been made in recent years the predominant attitudes still seem to be ‘make hay while the sun shines’ or ‘I’m sure some very clever bloke will figure out a way to fix it.’ Such is the strength of delusional thinking. If I were of the paranoid conspiracy theory school I would say our economic imperatives are part of a vast plot to wipe the majority of us out and leave the conspirators to rule a desolated earth from the safety of their self-contained bunkers. But as the other old saying goes – ‘Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.’

One misconception currently prevalent is that the soaring price of fuel will have the environmental benefit of forcing us to cut back on consumption. It is also blithely said that it will make alternative energy more attractive and encourage the production of electric cars. And though money is being invested in these it is mere tokenism beside where the big money is being spent - on developing previously uneconomical sources of oil. The quarrying of tar sands, for example, is now devastating vast swathes of Northern Alberta. It cost 23 dollars a barrel to extract as against 9 dollars from conventional wells and production emits 3 times more greenhouse gases. There is almost as much of it around the world as from conventional sources but the environmental devastation and toxic by-products it contaminates the environment with make conventional production look like an exemplar of ecological values.
And now I find out from this month’s Ecologist magazine that in our own back yard, the Weald Basin of Sussex, Hampshire, Surry and Kent, permission has been granted to prospect for oil and gas where 200 million barrels of previously unviable deposits are estimated to lie. Never mind it is a conservation area, Councils hard pressed to augment council tax revenues are hardly likely to reject such a windfall and the sight of nodding donkeys on the rolling downs is not that far away.

All this convinces me that they are not going to leave any oil in the ground. While there is a market for it, carbon fuels will continue to be exploited no matter what the economic or environmental costs. It is simply not going to run out – not until long after breathable air has.

As the title of one book sent to me this month asserts we have ‘Seven Years to Save the Planet’. Its author Bill McGuire points out that to salvage a civilisation capable of maintaining a semblance of organisation approximate to what we have now, we must achieve a near zero-carbon economy by 2050. The first step to this requires we halt the growth in greenhouse gas emissions by 2015. In other words, 2015 must be the last year in which greenhouse gas emissions increase. Subsequently they must decline. The Kyoto Protocol, modest and inadequate though its ambitions were has been largely ineffective in achieving these and its agreements are set to expire in 2012. Despite this McGuire holds up the UN Climate Change Convention in December 2009 at Copenhagen to be the last best hope for humanity. It will discuss and hopefully agree what is to replace the Kyoto Accord. Let us all hope that its agreements are strong enough and binding enough to meet the challenges we face. Otherwise we will encounter a future of increased chaos, catastrophic climate events triggering wholesale economic collapse, and resource wars as survivors battle with refugees to hold on to what little they have left. All thoughts then of doing the right thing and moderating our desires will become passé as we succeed in proving to ourselves that our selfishness does indeed outweigh our altruism.


As I used to walk past it on occasion I mused that it is surely with some irony that a car dealership on Camden Road, just before it intersects with Holloway Road, has named itself the Holocene Motor Group. The Holocene is the geological name of the present period of relatively benign interglacial climate we have been enjoying since the ice sheets retreated 10 thousand years ago. Why would a business engaged in destroying climate stability name itself after the geological epoch it is contributing to bring to a swift conclusion? My inquiries discovered, however, that the name was adopted over 35 years ago, before our current climate concerns attained such prominence and the name had a ring of modernity about it. Personally I think it should now rename itself the Pliocene to emphasise how outdated their thinking has become.

(Seven Years to Save the Planet by Bill McGuire - www.orionbooks.co.uk)