This week the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee unveiled its report on the effects of immigration into the UK, concluding that the "economic benefits to the resident population of net immigration (immigration minus emigration) are small, especially in the long run." Yet immigration remains a highly charged and divisive issue in the UK.
This is because 21st Century Britons find it increasingly difficult to reconcile their anxiety over increased immigration with their committment to racial equality. And this is because no clear solution to the problems associated with immigration has been presented that isn't intrinsically linked to race. This may seem unavoidable - after all, people who travel here from abroad are by definition foreign and, as native Brits living in British Overseas Territories already enjoy the same rights as us mainlanders, the likelihood is that immigrants will therefore be of a different nationality, religion, culture or race. However, things get more complicated when we consider migrants who have successfully settled here: Should they be forced to learn English; Are they a burden on public services; Are they planning to bring their families over? Suddenly we find ourselves in the sticky situation of addressing the rights of ethnic minorities in this country and the continuing influx of more and more of them into the country as one and the same question.
In 1968, however, when Enoch Powell made his Rivers of Blood speech, Britain was a very different place. Even if you ignore the debate over whether he was quoting a constituent or simply paraphrasing Far Right propaganda to support his argument, his position remained one which would be considered anathema to most people today. When he made his speech, he was arguing against anti-discrimination laws in housing and employment. He was arguing to protect an era where pubs commonly displayed signs reading: "No blacks, No dogs, No Irish". He was defending an old woman's (his alleged constituent) right to refuse to house black lodgers simply because they were black, depicting them as violent thugs for good measure. The result of Powell's speech was to energise the National Front and stoke fears amongst the white working class that the black man would one day have the whip hand over the white man. We still see similar sorts of racism today especially in tabloid newspapers. A poll of The Sun readers last year showed that on average they believed immigrants accounted for 25% of the population. Actually its just 8%.
My view is that the problems associated with immigration: housing shortages, strained public services, fierce competition for jobs etc are more examples of market failure than anything else. At the end of the day it is economics, and the British financial regulatory system to boot, that are screwing over the white working classes who claim to suffer most from the fallout of increased immigration. The CBI says businesses choose immigrants over domestic residents because they work harder and longer for less money. Housing shortages occur not because there are too many people, but because there aren't enough houses. When social housing is sold off by ruling parties for political gain and the super rich are invited to buy up as many houses as they want, thereby also driving up the price of housing, a squeeze on the most vulnerable -domestic and immigrant alike- is inevitable. When the government solicits ultra-rich foreign businessmen by allowing them to claim non-dom status and pay less tax on the same earnings than everybody else, people naturally begin to feel alienated.
Furthermore, with social mobility lower now than it was in the 1960s, and the difference between skilled and non-skilled, in our almost entirely service sector oriented economy, means choosing between selling shares and cleaning toilets, opportunities become limited and discontent rife. Also a lack of any real interest in foreign cultures or languages amongst the native population is restricting their ability to adapt and seek new lives and fortunes abroad in neighbouring European countries, just as their French, German and Spanish counterparts are learning English and bringing their skills to the city.
Indeed, if the last 40 years of immigration legislation have taught us anything it is that the more you tighten the law surrounding immigration, the more immigrants you will attract. This was the case in 1962 when immigration surged following the ratification of a new Act, restricting immigration, as settled immigrants who might one day have returned home felt they had no choice but to bring their families over pemanently for fear they may never be able to return to Britain again should they ever leave.
To blame, therefore, housing shortages, job shortages and a failing public service on anything but economics is ludicrous and to blame it on immigrants themselves is nothing more than thinly veiled racism.
Wednesday, 2 April 2008
Monday, 24 March 2008
Is the Church right on hybrid embryos?
Following the government's announcement of its plans to update the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act to allow scientists to create human animal hybrid embryos to develop stem cells for medical research, a debate on the ethics of such a policy has been raging. The Catholic Church in Scotland has denounced the prospective legislation as immoral whilst an array of medical charities have vociferously defended it, and the potentially massive medical benefits it could deliver, with Lord Winston weighing in today with accusations that the Catholic Church has been misleading the public on the issue.
A secondary issue causing much controversy is also whether or not MPs should be given a free vote on the proposals when they go through the Commons. Gordon Brown has come under extreme pressure to remove the whip for the vote and allow MPs, especially those for whom the bill presents a religious or ethical dilemna, as David Cameron and Nick Clegg have already pledged to do.
The aim of the legislation, as I understand it, is to allow scientists to take advantage of the ubiquity of animal embryos and replace the nuclei with human cells, such as skin cells. The embryos mature, thus converting the skin cells into stem cells that can be used for ground-breaking research that will hopefully provide treatments for a range of diseases and conditions such as Parkinsons and Alzheimers. In 2000, the goverment originally agreed to ban the development of such embryos on the advice of the Chief Medical Officer. Clearly, Gordon Brown has now decided to reverse this decision and explore the potential of stem cell research.
As I write this, I am struggling to understand the position the Church has taken on this issue - and I say this as someone who has consistently agreed with the Vatican's position on abortion and euthanasia, albeit for different reasons. I too would consider the development of such embryos immoral if they were to be matured to term - if that were even possible - but this is not the case. Rather, the embryo would be be destroyed after a maximum of 14 days. As they are not the product of human fertilisation, the anti-abortion argument can hardly hold as long as the Church continues to have no problem with killing fully developed animals for food. Furthermore, allowing scientists to create hybrid embryos will deter them from using fully human embryos for the same purpose which, for me, presents a very real ethical dilemna.
Most importantly though we must remind ourselves that scientists pioneering this research aren't just looking for a new toy to play with or to test the boundaries of human morality at their leisure. Although any rhetoric, whether that of a scientist, a priest or a politician, must always be taken with a pinch of salt, it very much appears that Stem cell research is our best bet yet for curing debilitating and ultimately terminal illnesses. In other words we are talking about people's lives. My grandfather died of Motor Neurone Disease, enduring a torturous six years of decline, losing first the ability to walk and eventually even the ability to swallow. If, on the day of his death, I had learnt that my government had tried to pass legislation that would help save him, but was held back by the musings of a Cardinal and the recalcitrance of a reactionary Church, I would be furious.
This brings me finally to the issue of whether or not Gordon Brown should give Labour MPs a free vote. Although I have never warmed to the idea of the 'whip' in the first place - if MPs are to be bound to vote a certain way on any issue, it should be by the constituents they represent and not their party leader - there can be no doubting its instrumentality in pushing through government policy. The conventional wisdom is that MPs should be allowed a free vote on issues of conscience where the subject of the bill before the Commons directly conflicts with their own core beliefs. Not only do leaders who rebuke this wisdom attract severe criticism for their decision, the can also end up with egg on their face should a handful of rebels decide to ignore the whip regardless. Doubtless this will be the only factor that may motivate the Prime Minister to give in to the mounting pressure and grant his MPs the free vote they are clambering for.
As for those MPs who do vote on conscience, particularly those sympathetic towards the position of the Catholic Church in Scotland, I can only hope that the core beliefs of the people they represent to Parliament factor in to their decision as much as their own. I also hope they accept that should they vote against, the subsequent deaths of those suffering from terminal illnesses, who could potentially have been spared by the future development of a viable Stem Cell treatment, will too be forever ingrained in their conscience.
A secondary issue causing much controversy is also whether or not MPs should be given a free vote on the proposals when they go through the Commons. Gordon Brown has come under extreme pressure to remove the whip for the vote and allow MPs, especially those for whom the bill presents a religious or ethical dilemna, as David Cameron and Nick Clegg have already pledged to do.
The aim of the legislation, as I understand it, is to allow scientists to take advantage of the ubiquity of animal embryos and replace the nuclei with human cells, such as skin cells. The embryos mature, thus converting the skin cells into stem cells that can be used for ground-breaking research that will hopefully provide treatments for a range of diseases and conditions such as Parkinsons and Alzheimers. In 2000, the goverment originally agreed to ban the development of such embryos on the advice of the Chief Medical Officer. Clearly, Gordon Brown has now decided to reverse this decision and explore the potential of stem cell research.
As I write this, I am struggling to understand the position the Church has taken on this issue - and I say this as someone who has consistently agreed with the Vatican's position on abortion and euthanasia, albeit for different reasons. I too would consider the development of such embryos immoral if they were to be matured to term - if that were even possible - but this is not the case. Rather, the embryo would be be destroyed after a maximum of 14 days. As they are not the product of human fertilisation, the anti-abortion argument can hardly hold as long as the Church continues to have no problem with killing fully developed animals for food. Furthermore, allowing scientists to create hybrid embryos will deter them from using fully human embryos for the same purpose which, for me, presents a very real ethical dilemna.
Most importantly though we must remind ourselves that scientists pioneering this research aren't just looking for a new toy to play with or to test the boundaries of human morality at their leisure. Although any rhetoric, whether that of a scientist, a priest or a politician, must always be taken with a pinch of salt, it very much appears that Stem cell research is our best bet yet for curing debilitating and ultimately terminal illnesses. In other words we are talking about people's lives. My grandfather died of Motor Neurone Disease, enduring a torturous six years of decline, losing first the ability to walk and eventually even the ability to swallow. If, on the day of his death, I had learnt that my government had tried to pass legislation that would help save him, but was held back by the musings of a Cardinal and the recalcitrance of a reactionary Church, I would be furious.
This brings me finally to the issue of whether or not Gordon Brown should give Labour MPs a free vote. Although I have never warmed to the idea of the 'whip' in the first place - if MPs are to be bound to vote a certain way on any issue, it should be by the constituents they represent and not their party leader - there can be no doubting its instrumentality in pushing through government policy. The conventional wisdom is that MPs should be allowed a free vote on issues of conscience where the subject of the bill before the Commons directly conflicts with their own core beliefs. Not only do leaders who rebuke this wisdom attract severe criticism for their decision, the can also end up with egg on their face should a handful of rebels decide to ignore the whip regardless. Doubtless this will be the only factor that may motivate the Prime Minister to give in to the mounting pressure and grant his MPs the free vote they are clambering for.
As for those MPs who do vote on conscience, particularly those sympathetic towards the position of the Catholic Church in Scotland, I can only hope that the core beliefs of the people they represent to Parliament factor in to their decision as much as their own. I also hope they accept that should they vote against, the subsequent deaths of those suffering from terminal illnesses, who could potentially have been spared by the future development of a viable Stem Cell treatment, will too be forever ingrained in their conscience.
Friday, 21 March 2008
Post Offices: Glenda's Great Betrayal
Wednesday night (March 19) marked the great betrayal of Swiss Cottage residents, not to mention the rest of Hampstead and Highgate, by our own MP Glenda Jackson. On Wednesday she was handed the opportunity to vote against the government, whom she has happily voted and spoken out against in the past, and their planned closure of thousands of local post offices across the country and she flatly rejected it, choosing to toe the government line instead. Ironically, it took a Tory Early Day Motion to present her with this opportunity in spite of their own pitiful record on public services, not to mention the failure of their leader to even turn up for the vote itself. The motion was wholeheartedly supported by the Lib Dems, who themselves have been vigorously campaigning on behalf of their own constituents to save their post offices for years. Although our Glenda showed some promise at the start, speaking against the closures during the debate, in the end admitting that the Tories and Lib Dems actually had a point was evidently just too much to bear and therefore the price of representing her own constituents to Parliament too high to pay. She voted against.
The closure of our local post offices by the government is an issue that has resonated throughout the community, particularly its most vulnerable members, since the policy was originally revealed. The government has promised alternative, mobile post offices, that paint a ghastly picture of a cross between a red pillar box and an ice cream van, within a vicinity of no more than 2 or 3 miles. 2 or 3 miles? Now picture an elderly man, widowed, children live far away, lives alone whose only friends are his own age who find it just as difficult as he to move around without pain and discomfort, without running out of breath every few steps. The only time he gets out of his small house that he bought 50 years ago, and is now in a perpetual state of disrepair, the only time he gets to see the few friends he has left is when he goes to his local post office to pick up his pension. In my area, this is the Finchley Road Post Office. There were more, but they've already been closed. The Finchley Road is a busy main road and a hilly one at that. The Post Office therefore is not easy to get to if you have mobility problems. Nonetheless, there are several small shops and cosy cafes further down the road where local members of the elderly community can frequently be found enjoying a cup of tea and each other's company.
Now consider the case of our friend again; that this small, but quaint, local building is his lifeline. It provides him with his sole source of income, lest he be forced to sell his home, and his only point of contact with the outside world - if you discount the care workers upon whom he relies to help him cook, clean and get in and out of the shower. He is being asked to walk 2 or 3 miles. Apply the same scenario to a pregnant woman or someone in a wheelchair and you see where I'm going with this.
Luckily, we live in a democracy where we can show MPs such as Glenda Jackson what happens to Parliamentarians who take their constituents for granted and who choose to be on the winning side over being on the right side. And although this battle may be lost, there are plenty more to come and as long as we pick someone to represent us who we can trust will actually take our side, our fortunes can only improve.
The closure of our local post offices by the government is an issue that has resonated throughout the community, particularly its most vulnerable members, since the policy was originally revealed. The government has promised alternative, mobile post offices, that paint a ghastly picture of a cross between a red pillar box and an ice cream van, within a vicinity of no more than 2 or 3 miles. 2 or 3 miles? Now picture an elderly man, widowed, children live far away, lives alone whose only friends are his own age who find it just as difficult as he to move around without pain and discomfort, without running out of breath every few steps. The only time he gets out of his small house that he bought 50 years ago, and is now in a perpetual state of disrepair, the only time he gets to see the few friends he has left is when he goes to his local post office to pick up his pension. In my area, this is the Finchley Road Post Office. There were more, but they've already been closed. The Finchley Road is a busy main road and a hilly one at that. The Post Office therefore is not easy to get to if you have mobility problems. Nonetheless, there are several small shops and cosy cafes further down the road where local members of the elderly community can frequently be found enjoying a cup of tea and each other's company.
Now consider the case of our friend again; that this small, but quaint, local building is his lifeline. It provides him with his sole source of income, lest he be forced to sell his home, and his only point of contact with the outside world - if you discount the care workers upon whom he relies to help him cook, clean and get in and out of the shower. He is being asked to walk 2 or 3 miles. Apply the same scenario to a pregnant woman or someone in a wheelchair and you see where I'm going with this.
Luckily, we live in a democracy where we can show MPs such as Glenda Jackson what happens to Parliamentarians who take their constituents for granted and who choose to be on the winning side over being on the right side. And although this battle may be lost, there are plenty more to come and as long as we pick someone to represent us who we can trust will actually take our side, our fortunes can only improve.
Tuesday, 26 February 2008
That Obama Picture
Who is behind that Obama picture? You know, the one with him in traditional Kenyan dress so blatantly circulated to remind everyone that Obama has a partially Muslim and, God forgive, non-American background. This is despite the fact that he is a Christian, as he has repeatedly emphasised in his response to the picture. Naturally, the finger has been pointed at Hillary Clinton's campaign with the Obama campaign assiduously accusing them of shameless scare-mongering. However, if you ask me, it is not with Hillary that the guilt lies, but the likely Republican candidate John - the swinging hot-head - McCain.
McCain has already been targeting Obama specifically in anticipation of him being the likely candidate and is no doubt sweating the latest polls which say that if a general election was called tomorrow between Obama and McCain, Obama would win in a 50% - 38% landslide. Granted the poll is just a snapshot of national popular opinion and doesnt' specify how they would fare in each state, but that is hardly necessary to get McCain panicking.
That said, McCain will also be aware that it will be a while yet till his rival candidate is confirmed as the Democrats continue to slog it out primary after primary. Although, he'll probably miss out on his dream candidate, and pretty much guaranteed win, he can still make the most of the ongoing contest and do his best to drag it out as far as possible. After all, Obama can't concentrate his fire on McCain until he's finished off Hillary.
However, the main reason for McCain to do this is simply the knowledge that the Clintons would get the blame, regardless of how profusely they denied it which is, incidentally, exactly what's happening. In so doing, he would stoke up enough fear of Obama secretly being a Muslim to keep Hillary in the game for a little longer (and not damage his own chances in the general either) and, most importantly, poison what has already been a bitter and dirty contest for the Democratic nomination. The aim of this is to ultimately make the Democrats look petty, petulent, and most of all, divided.
As an aside though to obserivng and commenting on what appears on the surface to be just another fascinating political manouver, how depressing is this entire episode? It seems so ironic that such is the lack of progress of religious and racial tolerance in America, in spite of their constitution, the Obama camp has felt so hideously aggrieved by the circulation of the picture. In contrast, if such an image of a British Parliamentary candidate were to be circulated, nobody would have bat an eyelid. Rather, what would have most likely caused offence is the response the the Obama camp felt obliged to give that he is a committed Christian and has never been a Muslim.
It's funny how it's things like this that make me feel incredibly proud to be British.
McCain has already been targeting Obama specifically in anticipation of him being the likely candidate and is no doubt sweating the latest polls which say that if a general election was called tomorrow between Obama and McCain, Obama would win in a 50% - 38% landslide. Granted the poll is just a snapshot of national popular opinion and doesnt' specify how they would fare in each state, but that is hardly necessary to get McCain panicking.
That said, McCain will also be aware that it will be a while yet till his rival candidate is confirmed as the Democrats continue to slog it out primary after primary. Although, he'll probably miss out on his dream candidate, and pretty much guaranteed win, he can still make the most of the ongoing contest and do his best to drag it out as far as possible. After all, Obama can't concentrate his fire on McCain until he's finished off Hillary.
However, the main reason for McCain to do this is simply the knowledge that the Clintons would get the blame, regardless of how profusely they denied it which is, incidentally, exactly what's happening. In so doing, he would stoke up enough fear of Obama secretly being a Muslim to keep Hillary in the game for a little longer (and not damage his own chances in the general either) and, most importantly, poison what has already been a bitter and dirty contest for the Democratic nomination. The aim of this is to ultimately make the Democrats look petty, petulent, and most of all, divided.
As an aside though to obserivng and commenting on what appears on the surface to be just another fascinating political manouver, how depressing is this entire episode? It seems so ironic that such is the lack of progress of religious and racial tolerance in America, in spite of their constitution, the Obama camp has felt so hideously aggrieved by the circulation of the picture. In contrast, if such an image of a British Parliamentary candidate were to be circulated, nobody would have bat an eyelid. Rather, what would have most likely caused offence is the response the the Obama camp felt obliged to give that he is a committed Christian and has never been a Muslim.
It's funny how it's things like this that make me feel incredibly proud to be British.
Sunday, 17 February 2008
Skopje: Beware of Greeks Bearing Vetoes
This weekend's Kathimerini (major Greek national newspaper) reported that U.S Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, and Greek Foreign Minister, Dora Bakoyannis, met to discuss the admission of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (originally Skopje) into NATO.
Currently, Greece is threatening to veto the admission of Skopje unless it changes its name and all other NATO and EU members agree to rescind any previous recognition of Skopje as the Republic of Macedonia, it's chosen name. The new proposal recently put forward by Ms Rice is to change 'Macedonia' to 'New Macedonia' in order to achieve a distinction between Slavic Macedonia, the country, and Greek Macedonia, the region.
Although for many external observers the Greek veto threat may appear childish and to more seriously jeopardise the stability of the Balkans, Greece's defiance is just and long overdue. This is because the now longstanding dispute with Skopje is not simply about a name, but about history, ethnicity, territory and therefore sovereignty.
When Skopje declared its independence in 1991 and adopted the name Macedonia shortly after, it was not simply displaying its admiration of the name or reverence towards the historic Greek Kingdom of Macedon, otherwise known as Macedonia. Rather, it adopted the name on the grounds that they were the true descendants of King Phillip and Alexander the Great and that all Greeks living in the region of Greece known as Macedonia were in fact a foreign minority residing within their territory. They were therefore effectively implying that Greece was occupying its own northern quarter. As a result, they used the original Macedonian flag as their own, insisted their own dialect -which predictably they called Macedonian- was the official language of the historic Kingdom and even usurped entire segments of Greek history including, of course, the reign of Alexander the Great. Indeed, the country's major airport, based in its Capital city, is named after him.
Put simply, anyone who thinks that the naming of Macedonia is no more significant than the naming of Paris, Texas; New England; or even Athens, Georgia consider this. Imagine the reaction of the French if Paris, Texas took the credit for the Enlightenment or the reaction of the English if the people of New England declared themselves the rightful heirs of the legacies of Elizabeth I and Winston Churchill. Similarly, no Greek has a problem with Athens, Georgia because at no point have any of its citizens declared their city as the actual home of Pericles.
However, let us not lose sight of the crude politics involved here. The only reason why NATO is suddenly open to compromise is because they cannot admit Skopje as long as Greece retains its veto, a potentially massive embarrasment for the alliance. Similarly, Skopje needs no persuading in accepting any offer to join and therefore carries litle leverage over the terms of their accession. Greece, therefore holds all the cards. This is not just because of the veto but also because any concerted reconstruction effort in the Balkans depends on Greece's co-operation; poltically, militarily, but most of all economically. As Greece's economy has grown over the years, just as their neighours' have been crumbling around them under the pressures of civil war and internal ethnic strife, Greece has leapt on the opportunity to invest heavily in Balkan reconstruction. As a result, the Hellenic Republic has become the single biggest source of investment in all the new Balkan republics, including Skopje, to the extent that now almost a quarter of all banks in the region are Greek-owned.
So, let us celebrate today as the day Greece finally stood up for itself and defended its sovereignty against those who shamefully claim it for themselves, only to return open handed asking for money and security. And let us celebrate the fact that the good old wooden horse trick still works after all this time and remind those who tried to ignore their grievances to beware of Greeks bearing vetoes.
Currently, Greece is threatening to veto the admission of Skopje unless it changes its name and all other NATO and EU members agree to rescind any previous recognition of Skopje as the Republic of Macedonia, it's chosen name. The new proposal recently put forward by Ms Rice is to change 'Macedonia' to 'New Macedonia' in order to achieve a distinction between Slavic Macedonia, the country, and Greek Macedonia, the region.
Although for many external observers the Greek veto threat may appear childish and to more seriously jeopardise the stability of the Balkans, Greece's defiance is just and long overdue. This is because the now longstanding dispute with Skopje is not simply about a name, but about history, ethnicity, territory and therefore sovereignty.
When Skopje declared its independence in 1991 and adopted the name Macedonia shortly after, it was not simply displaying its admiration of the name or reverence towards the historic Greek Kingdom of Macedon, otherwise known as Macedonia. Rather, it adopted the name on the grounds that they were the true descendants of King Phillip and Alexander the Great and that all Greeks living in the region of Greece known as Macedonia were in fact a foreign minority residing within their territory. They were therefore effectively implying that Greece was occupying its own northern quarter. As a result, they used the original Macedonian flag as their own, insisted their own dialect -which predictably they called Macedonian- was the official language of the historic Kingdom and even usurped entire segments of Greek history including, of course, the reign of Alexander the Great. Indeed, the country's major airport, based in its Capital city, is named after him.
Put simply, anyone who thinks that the naming of Macedonia is no more significant than the naming of Paris, Texas; New England; or even Athens, Georgia consider this. Imagine the reaction of the French if Paris, Texas took the credit for the Enlightenment or the reaction of the English if the people of New England declared themselves the rightful heirs of the legacies of Elizabeth I and Winston Churchill. Similarly, no Greek has a problem with Athens, Georgia because at no point have any of its citizens declared their city as the actual home of Pericles.
However, let us not lose sight of the crude politics involved here. The only reason why NATO is suddenly open to compromise is because they cannot admit Skopje as long as Greece retains its veto, a potentially massive embarrasment for the alliance. Similarly, Skopje needs no persuading in accepting any offer to join and therefore carries litle leverage over the terms of their accession. Greece, therefore holds all the cards. This is not just because of the veto but also because any concerted reconstruction effort in the Balkans depends on Greece's co-operation; poltically, militarily, but most of all economically. As Greece's economy has grown over the years, just as their neighours' have been crumbling around them under the pressures of civil war and internal ethnic strife, Greece has leapt on the opportunity to invest heavily in Balkan reconstruction. As a result, the Hellenic Republic has become the single biggest source of investment in all the new Balkan republics, including Skopje, to the extent that now almost a quarter of all banks in the region are Greek-owned.
So, let us celebrate today as the day Greece finally stood up for itself and defended its sovereignty against those who shamefully claim it for themselves, only to return open handed asking for money and security. And let us celebrate the fact that the good old wooden horse trick still works after all this time and remind those who tried to ignore their grievances to beware of Greeks bearing vetoes.
A Defence of the Surveillance Society
The recent story of the bugging of Siddique Khan MP and the subsequent revelations by the national media that such operations were the norm and in some cases required no more authorisation than the go ahead from a senior police officer, led to the biggest assault on the State's powers of surveillance for quite some time. This furore, however, was not a new debate, but rather the fierce reignition of an ongoing one over the use of surveillance technology by UK security forces. In my position as a press officer for the Association of Chief Police Officers, I strangely found myself caught in the middle of this debate, helping the Police to make the case to the public for increased use of surveillance, whilst my own party, the Liberal Democrats were berating it as an encroachment too far of our civil liberties.
I have traditionally been indifferent to the claims that we are 'sleepwalking' into a surveillance society and have found assertions that we are ultimately headed towards a police state, V for Vendetta style, just plain farcical. However, the debate of security versus liberty and where to draw the line between the two has always fascinated me. This was a debate that last month I was fortunate enough to witness myself when I attended the House of Lords Constitutional committee session on surveillance. There, the three chief police officers responsible for presiding over the Police National Database, the DNA database and the use of CCTV sat before this collection of Peers from all parties and were grilled over the impact of their actions on civil liberties in Britain.
I have no intention of giving a verbatum recital of how this debate went (for anyone interested in the transcript though, see: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/lduncorr.htm#const) but safe to say it helped me to clarify my own position on the issues at stake. The Peers' concerns were far more refined than those of the traditional scare mongers who occupy the most media time such as Liberty. They have always frustrated me as appearing to be passionate defenders of freedom without demonstrating any real understanding of why it is important. Rather the Peers got right to the crux of the issues; why were innocent people being kept on the DNA database? Was the stigmatism afforded to people given criminal records for the smallest of offences worth its weight in national security? Did innocent civillians own CCTV images of themselves stored away by the police for later use in an investigation? Were there even any protections afforded to them in return for not seeking their consent to be filmed?
This tight scrutiny yielded many important facts, some very interesting, others quite startling. Perhaps most interesting, for those who accuse the defenders of CCTV of manufacturing a police state, was the revelation that 84% of all CCTV cameras in operation are privately owned, whilst the bulk of those publicly owned were put in place by local councils at the behest of local communities. This is actually a bit of a red herring as CCTV does not prevent crime -or at least not the kind of crime they're afraid of; violent, alcohol fuelled, crime. Rather, CCTV's value lies in its use as an aid to Police investigations, providing evidence to be used in court to seal prosecutions that might otherwise be lost
For example, CCTV evidence was a vital element of the successful prosecution of two recent anti-terror trials. However many cases have continued to fall away because of a horrifying lack of co-ordination between the surveillance methods of the security services and the playback capabilities of the criminal justice system. For instance, CCTV evidence recorded on state of the art digital cameras is frequently deemed redundant owing to many courtrooms possesing nothing more than VHS video recorders for playing evidence back to juries.
Similarly, DNA samples too small to aid investigations when originally taken many years ago or taken for a smaller crime were crucial to solving long-standing crimes such as the Soham murders. The retention of innocent people's DNA was defended as being equally crucial to such investigations. This was because one of the ways Police go about identifying a potential assailant in say a rape or murder case, where DNA evidence is particularly relied upon, is to rule out the people closest to the crime scene by testing their DNA against any samples they may find. This enables them to narrow down their search and gives them a much better chance of actually finding the rapist/murderer. However, this therefore mandates the police to arbitrarily collect the DNA of anyone in or around the vicinity of the crime scene regardless of whether they have any reason to suspect them of doing anything wrong or not. Furthermore, as such cases can take decades to solve, their DNA cannot be removed from the DNA database, the Police argue, without hindering the investigation.
So which side do I fall on?
Well, I've always highly valued my privacy to the extent that I close my curtains even in my own home because I don't want people across the street to be able to see what I'm doing. But, when it comes to CCTV, I have no problem with being filmed by a device that I know could help to put away my potential mugger or worse. Similarly, being observed in public is a lot different to being watched in private. Everyone can see when you walk down the street. The notion that local authorities are violating our privacy by filming us seems somewhat bizarre to me, therefore, even if that does seem simplistic. In fact, I'm far more peturbed by the fact that there is a 4 out of 5 chance that every time I am filmed walking down the street it will be by a privately owned camera. This is for the simple reason that I can't make an ordinary individual think twice about filming me by threatening to vote for somebody else and ultimately that's what my admittedly lax attitude to state surveillance is down to. I could, of course, threaten them with rudementary violence, but I think you'll agree that's not the point.
Indeed it is the snooping techniques of the private sector that bother me the most; inexplicable junk mail from companies to whom you never gave your address, cold calls from salesmen to whom you never gave your number, employers checking your facebook for personal information they could never legally ask you at an interview. It gets worse though. In 2005, the Guardian revealed how Tesco was collating and then selling personal data gathered on millions of households throughout the UK, using a database called 'Crucible'. Apparently amongst the reams of personal information stored on Crucible were: "a map of personality, travel habits, shopping preferences and even how charitable and eco-friendly you are." The information was collected through application forms for Tesco loyalty cards combined with information gathered from subscriptions to magazines run by associated companies as well as the electoral roll. As a result, not only did Tesco gather detailed profiles on their own customers but also on a host of people who had never even shopped there in their life. One journalist trying to garner the full extent of Tesco's information gathering skills filled out an application form for the loyalty card, giving as few personal details as possible. Within one year they had two full pages on her and her shopping behaviour.
And of course, let's not forget the basic bugging devices you can buy from gadget shops or the firms that have taken the role of the old pashioned private investigator to new levels. One U.S firm called 'Advanced Surveillance Groups' offers to spy on their clients' spouses and partners to see if they are cheating on them. On their homepage it boasts: "Private Investigators have the ability to watch your spouse, monitor who they are with, where they go and what they do, discreetly and confidentially. We can do this through surveillance, utilization of vehicle tracking devices and providing you with software to monitor e-mail, chat room discussions and internet activity".
Yet, all I ever hear are complaints that it is the State that is infringing on people's individual liberty, comparing the UK today to totalitarian regimes of the past. They forget that the Police have to regularly submit themselves to investigation by three seperate regulatory bodies created specifically to hold the Police to account any time they take or use someone's personal data in an investigation of their own. They forget that they willingly and regularly open themselves up to questioning by committees such as the House of Lords Constiutional committee and the House of Commons Home affairs committee. They forget that the Police are granted these powers by democratically elected officials and can equally have them taken away as according to the will of the electorate aided by the rigorous probing into their activities by the free press. Most of all they forget that the aim of these measures in the first place is to make our streets safer and to put the few terrorists, rapists and murderers who slip through the net in jail where they belong. Any renegade officers, such as Mark Kearney, who abuse this power are promptly dealt with, rooted out through the fierce scrutiny applied by the Information Commissioner's Office and the Houses of Parliament.
This brings us back to bugging, one of the most contraversial aspects of police surveillance. The main reason why I have not said much on this so far is because the Police are about to go before the Home Affairs committee to be grilled on the Siddique Khan case specifically and I feel that such testimony would make a much better background for a piece on bugging than just my own random musings. But to address it briefly; every police officer I have discussed this with has defended the bugging of MPs when talking to terrorist suspects, especially when the two share a friendship, as necessary for the MP's protection above all else. This defence runs along the lines that an old friend with intimate knowledge of an elected representative's past or simply an emotional connection could attempt to bribe or blackmail an MP to pull strings for them to secure their release outside of due process. How much you buy in to this ultimately depends on how much or how little you trust the Police, but as someone who was initially horrified by the revelations as well as someone who does have a great deal of faith in the integrity of our security services, I was willing to accept this. Although the more cynical alternative remains: that the Police are bugging MPs sensitive conversations so they can coerce them for their own ends, the threat posed by empowering elected officials alone to authorise such activities seems greater to me. After all Joe McCarthy wasn't a police officer.
To conclude, as much as I am grateful to the press for leaving no stone unturned -once they get interested- and even the likes of Liberty for taking it upon themselves to oppose what they see as being breaches of my privacy, I still think they are missing a trick here. Rather than focusing on the seemingly uninhibited surveillance methods of private sector companies who answer only to their shareholders and are motivated only by profit, they allow their instinctive suspicion of the State to cloud their judgement. Whereas someone like me is happy for the State to be as large or small as circumstances require as long as it is under my instruction as a voter and accountable to me as a citizen, they won't be happy until they roll its frontiers as far back as they can go. Getting their way, however, would only succeed in making us more vulnerable to serious crimes and terrorist atrocities - although I don't want to demonise them as if any future terrorist attack could be blamed squarely upon Shami Chakrabarti. In the meantime, Tesco will still be offering my details to the highest bidder even though I made a conscious choice to shop at Waitrose (Sainsbury's at a push) a long time ago.
I have traditionally been indifferent to the claims that we are 'sleepwalking' into a surveillance society and have found assertions that we are ultimately headed towards a police state, V for Vendetta style, just plain farcical. However, the debate of security versus liberty and where to draw the line between the two has always fascinated me. This was a debate that last month I was fortunate enough to witness myself when I attended the House of Lords Constitutional committee session on surveillance. There, the three chief police officers responsible for presiding over the Police National Database, the DNA database and the use of CCTV sat before this collection of Peers from all parties and were grilled over the impact of their actions on civil liberties in Britain.
I have no intention of giving a verbatum recital of how this debate went (for anyone interested in the transcript though, see: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/lduncorr.htm#const) but safe to say it helped me to clarify my own position on the issues at stake. The Peers' concerns were far more refined than those of the traditional scare mongers who occupy the most media time such as Liberty. They have always frustrated me as appearing to be passionate defenders of freedom without demonstrating any real understanding of why it is important. Rather the Peers got right to the crux of the issues; why were innocent people being kept on the DNA database? Was the stigmatism afforded to people given criminal records for the smallest of offences worth its weight in national security? Did innocent civillians own CCTV images of themselves stored away by the police for later use in an investigation? Were there even any protections afforded to them in return for not seeking their consent to be filmed?
This tight scrutiny yielded many important facts, some very interesting, others quite startling. Perhaps most interesting, for those who accuse the defenders of CCTV of manufacturing a police state, was the revelation that 84% of all CCTV cameras in operation are privately owned, whilst the bulk of those publicly owned were put in place by local councils at the behest of local communities. This is actually a bit of a red herring as CCTV does not prevent crime -or at least not the kind of crime they're afraid of; violent, alcohol fuelled, crime. Rather, CCTV's value lies in its use as an aid to Police investigations, providing evidence to be used in court to seal prosecutions that might otherwise be lost
For example, CCTV evidence was a vital element of the successful prosecution of two recent anti-terror trials. However many cases have continued to fall away because of a horrifying lack of co-ordination between the surveillance methods of the security services and the playback capabilities of the criminal justice system. For instance, CCTV evidence recorded on state of the art digital cameras is frequently deemed redundant owing to many courtrooms possesing nothing more than VHS video recorders for playing evidence back to juries.
Similarly, DNA samples too small to aid investigations when originally taken many years ago or taken for a smaller crime were crucial to solving long-standing crimes such as the Soham murders. The retention of innocent people's DNA was defended as being equally crucial to such investigations. This was because one of the ways Police go about identifying a potential assailant in say a rape or murder case, where DNA evidence is particularly relied upon, is to rule out the people closest to the crime scene by testing their DNA against any samples they may find. This enables them to narrow down their search and gives them a much better chance of actually finding the rapist/murderer. However, this therefore mandates the police to arbitrarily collect the DNA of anyone in or around the vicinity of the crime scene regardless of whether they have any reason to suspect them of doing anything wrong or not. Furthermore, as such cases can take decades to solve, their DNA cannot be removed from the DNA database, the Police argue, without hindering the investigation.
So which side do I fall on?
Well, I've always highly valued my privacy to the extent that I close my curtains even in my own home because I don't want people across the street to be able to see what I'm doing. But, when it comes to CCTV, I have no problem with being filmed by a device that I know could help to put away my potential mugger or worse. Similarly, being observed in public is a lot different to being watched in private. Everyone can see when you walk down the street. The notion that local authorities are violating our privacy by filming us seems somewhat bizarre to me, therefore, even if that does seem simplistic. In fact, I'm far more peturbed by the fact that there is a 4 out of 5 chance that every time I am filmed walking down the street it will be by a privately owned camera. This is for the simple reason that I can't make an ordinary individual think twice about filming me by threatening to vote for somebody else and ultimately that's what my admittedly lax attitude to state surveillance is down to. I could, of course, threaten them with rudementary violence, but I think you'll agree that's not the point.
Indeed it is the snooping techniques of the private sector that bother me the most; inexplicable junk mail from companies to whom you never gave your address, cold calls from salesmen to whom you never gave your number, employers checking your facebook for personal information they could never legally ask you at an interview. It gets worse though. In 2005, the Guardian revealed how Tesco was collating and then selling personal data gathered on millions of households throughout the UK, using a database called 'Crucible'. Apparently amongst the reams of personal information stored on Crucible were: "a map of personality, travel habits, shopping preferences and even how charitable and eco-friendly you are." The information was collected through application forms for Tesco loyalty cards combined with information gathered from subscriptions to magazines run by associated companies as well as the electoral roll. As a result, not only did Tesco gather detailed profiles on their own customers but also on a host of people who had never even shopped there in their life. One journalist trying to garner the full extent of Tesco's information gathering skills filled out an application form for the loyalty card, giving as few personal details as possible. Within one year they had two full pages on her and her shopping behaviour.
And of course, let's not forget the basic bugging devices you can buy from gadget shops or the firms that have taken the role of the old pashioned private investigator to new levels. One U.S firm called 'Advanced Surveillance Groups' offers to spy on their clients' spouses and partners to see if they are cheating on them. On their homepage it boasts: "Private Investigators have the ability to watch your spouse, monitor who they are with, where they go and what they do, discreetly and confidentially. We can do this through surveillance, utilization of vehicle tracking devices and providing you with software to monitor e-mail, chat room discussions and internet activity".
Yet, all I ever hear are complaints that it is the State that is infringing on people's individual liberty, comparing the UK today to totalitarian regimes of the past. They forget that the Police have to regularly submit themselves to investigation by three seperate regulatory bodies created specifically to hold the Police to account any time they take or use someone's personal data in an investigation of their own. They forget that they willingly and regularly open themselves up to questioning by committees such as the House of Lords Constiutional committee and the House of Commons Home affairs committee. They forget that the Police are granted these powers by democratically elected officials and can equally have them taken away as according to the will of the electorate aided by the rigorous probing into their activities by the free press. Most of all they forget that the aim of these measures in the first place is to make our streets safer and to put the few terrorists, rapists and murderers who slip through the net in jail where they belong. Any renegade officers, such as Mark Kearney, who abuse this power are promptly dealt with, rooted out through the fierce scrutiny applied by the Information Commissioner's Office and the Houses of Parliament.
This brings us back to bugging, one of the most contraversial aspects of police surveillance. The main reason why I have not said much on this so far is because the Police are about to go before the Home Affairs committee to be grilled on the Siddique Khan case specifically and I feel that such testimony would make a much better background for a piece on bugging than just my own random musings. But to address it briefly; every police officer I have discussed this with has defended the bugging of MPs when talking to terrorist suspects, especially when the two share a friendship, as necessary for the MP's protection above all else. This defence runs along the lines that an old friend with intimate knowledge of an elected representative's past or simply an emotional connection could attempt to bribe or blackmail an MP to pull strings for them to secure their release outside of due process. How much you buy in to this ultimately depends on how much or how little you trust the Police, but as someone who was initially horrified by the revelations as well as someone who does have a great deal of faith in the integrity of our security services, I was willing to accept this. Although the more cynical alternative remains: that the Police are bugging MPs sensitive conversations so they can coerce them for their own ends, the threat posed by empowering elected officials alone to authorise such activities seems greater to me. After all Joe McCarthy wasn't a police officer.
To conclude, as much as I am grateful to the press for leaving no stone unturned -once they get interested- and even the likes of Liberty for taking it upon themselves to oppose what they see as being breaches of my privacy, I still think they are missing a trick here. Rather than focusing on the seemingly uninhibited surveillance methods of private sector companies who answer only to their shareholders and are motivated only by profit, they allow their instinctive suspicion of the State to cloud their judgement. Whereas someone like me is happy for the State to be as large or small as circumstances require as long as it is under my instruction as a voter and accountable to me as a citizen, they won't be happy until they roll its frontiers as far back as they can go. Getting their way, however, would only succeed in making us more vulnerable to serious crimes and terrorist atrocities - although I don't want to demonise them as if any future terrorist attack could be blamed squarely upon Shami Chakrabarti. In the meantime, Tesco will still be offering my details to the highest bidder even though I made a conscious choice to shop at Waitrose (Sainsbury's at a push) a long time ago.
Friday, 7 December 2007
Why ethics alone can't save the world
Green is the new black. Any government that wants to get re-elected and any political party that wants to usurp them is putting the environment at the core of their rhetoric and political campaigns lest they find themselves in a perpetual political wilderness. This is of course as far as it goes. The government commits itself to drastically reducing carbon emissions at Kyoto only to see them rise; David Cameron, leader of the Conservatives, rides his bike to work only to have his car follow him; whilst the Lib Dems, despite consistently saying the right things on the subject, are unlikely to find themselves challenged to put them into practice any time soon.
Why is this the case though? The electorate can spot hypocrisy when they see it and they don't settle for rhetoric without action when it comes to issues like the economy and terrorism. Hence successive governments introduce whatever measures are necessary to address them whether this means taking on powerful trade unions or moving to jail people without charge for six weeks. Quite simply, the answer is that as high as the environment may poll on any survey of voter priorities, few people are prepared to make the sacrifices entailed by a committment to save the environment. Few people are willing to sort their rubbish into recyclables and non-recyclables or to forgo their plastic bags and bottled water. Even fewer are willing to sacrifice their cheap flights abroad. This of course is no revelation. It is taken as a given that the only way to force the government to put its money where its mouth is is to launch a grassroots movement and turn Britain Green from the bottom upwards.
So, activists, concerned citizens and even a few well meaning politicians set about winning people's hearts and minds and exploiting the sensitive ethical dillemnas that are intrinsically, although by no means exclusively, linked to the problems of climate change. These include the perils of buying cheap goods highlighted not just for the damage their importation does to the environment but also for the manner in which they are manufactured. Thus, clothes from Primark are condemned for the carbon footprint they leave after being shipped from abroad whilst perpetuating child labour in the Far East. Plastic bags are reviled not just because they take centuries to decompose but also because of the pictures of small animals dying in their droves after ingesting them.
People who show little regard or knowledge of these problems are often held in such contempt -especially by many members of the party to which I belong, the Liberal Democrats- that their actions appear both incomprehensible and unjustifiable. They find it unfathomable that anyone could hold any higher priority than the safety of the planet; that anyone would even think twice about paying more for their clothes and their food if it meant minimising their carbon footprint and putting the sponsors of child labour out of busniness at the same time.
I am always instinctively wary of such people who look down on others and say things like: "I can't understand why they would do this". In a single sentence, they dismiss the circumstances of such an individual and emphasise how they would never do the same, subtly concluding that the only variable factor must be that they are just a better person. Add to this that many of those leading these 'grassroots' movements come from privileged backgrounds where the costs of food and clothing don't need to be carefully considered, and indeed weighed up against each other, and the picture becomes clearer. Consider further the fact that those who currently benefit the most from cheap clothing, food and air travel would suffer the most from restrictions on these things whilst their richer counterparts would barely even feel a tickle let alone a pinch and the challenge of forging a coherent plan of action becomes greater still.
Celebrities are frequently the worst offenders when it comes to this, not to say that a political opinion should be disregarded just because it comes from Hollywood. That said, I can't help but raise an eyebrow at pop stars who fly thousands of miles to hold concerts aimed at raising awareness of Global Warming. Others lecture the masses on the perils of climate change, stopping only to sip from their plastic bottles of water shipped directly to them from the far reaches of the earth. Similarly, even for those whose actions are consistent with their actions, no good deed goes unpunished. In the mid 1990s, according to UNICEF, a boycott of Nepalese carpets hand made by child labourers led their employers to go bust and fire all their workers. Consequently, over 5,000 Nepalese girls went from being child labourers to being child prostitutes.
Another obstacle to concerted action to tackle Climate Change in the UK is the overwhelming sense of futility felt across our small country, that without the co-operation of the biggest pollutors, namely the U.S and China, anything we do is rather inconsequential. This fatalism is not wholly unreasonable either. The biggest pollutors in the world are the most reluctant to do anything about it with the Bush administration only just beginning to concede that global warming may just be a problem after all. In addition, all things being equal even if the UK was to go carbon neutral overnight, any benefits to the environment would be quickly offset by China and India.
In sum, only a far-reaching, legally binding multi-lateral effort would prevent the efforts of the most dedicated activists from going to waste, protect the most vulnerable from the fallout and justify the most hefty sacrifices. So, I urge my fellow Lib Dems to forgive me when I say: don't blame individuals, especially those who struggle enough with the everyday circumstances of life, for the failures of government. As for the government, although they have the power and indeed the duty to tackle climate change, they are not omnipotent and have re-election and international power politics to contend with. Furthermore, as pressing as climate change is, it is not as immediate a threat as an asteroid or a tsunami even if it is of far greater proportions. Rather, to paraphrase that great source of modern political wisdom, 'The West Wing', only two things can force a government's hand: politics and money.
History shows that economics is indeed the key to energy efficiency, particularly in the United States. Currently one of the most woeful polluters in the world in spite of the growing acceptance that climate change is a man-made phenomenon which requires urgent solutions, in the eight years between 1973 and 1981, when Climate Change was not the serious consideration it has now become, energy consuption per unit of GNP actually declined by 18%. This was achieved thanks mainly to President Jimmy Carter's reforms such as creating the first cabinet level Department of Energy which oversaw a centrally co-ordinated shift from oil to alternative energy; amendments to the Clean Air Act which forced auto-makers to improve the energy efficiency of cars across the country; extra layers of insulation built into new houses to cut gas bills and tax breaks for people using solar power to meet their energy needs. What prompted such sweeping reforms? A severe oil crisis and the prospect of an immediate economic catastrophe as a result.
Now, it is familiar tensions prompting another push towards energy efficiency in the United States whilst carbon emissions trading, an initiative pioneered by the European Union, is offering a cash incentive for companies to take action. These markets, like any markets however, require greater regulation to ensure their aims are actually achieved - a critical article in the Economist some time ago highlighted how lapses in regulation of markets such as the Chicago Climate Exchange have led to the undermining of its environmental credentials as loggers plundering the Amazon rainforest get rich off the scheme by using ethanol powered trucks. Nonetheless, the benefits are there to be reaped.
So, whilst well meaning people may say that ethics are the key to recycling, at the end of the day it's money that makes the world go round. In time, money can make the world go green too.
Why is this the case though? The electorate can spot hypocrisy when they see it and they don't settle for rhetoric without action when it comes to issues like the economy and terrorism. Hence successive governments introduce whatever measures are necessary to address them whether this means taking on powerful trade unions or moving to jail people without charge for six weeks. Quite simply, the answer is that as high as the environment may poll on any survey of voter priorities, few people are prepared to make the sacrifices entailed by a committment to save the environment. Few people are willing to sort their rubbish into recyclables and non-recyclables or to forgo their plastic bags and bottled water. Even fewer are willing to sacrifice their cheap flights abroad. This of course is no revelation. It is taken as a given that the only way to force the government to put its money where its mouth is is to launch a grassroots movement and turn Britain Green from the bottom upwards.
So, activists, concerned citizens and even a few well meaning politicians set about winning people's hearts and minds and exploiting the sensitive ethical dillemnas that are intrinsically, although by no means exclusively, linked to the problems of climate change. These include the perils of buying cheap goods highlighted not just for the damage their importation does to the environment but also for the manner in which they are manufactured. Thus, clothes from Primark are condemned for the carbon footprint they leave after being shipped from abroad whilst perpetuating child labour in the Far East. Plastic bags are reviled not just because they take centuries to decompose but also because of the pictures of small animals dying in their droves after ingesting them.
People who show little regard or knowledge of these problems are often held in such contempt -especially by many members of the party to which I belong, the Liberal Democrats- that their actions appear both incomprehensible and unjustifiable. They find it unfathomable that anyone could hold any higher priority than the safety of the planet; that anyone would even think twice about paying more for their clothes and their food if it meant minimising their carbon footprint and putting the sponsors of child labour out of busniness at the same time.
I am always instinctively wary of such people who look down on others and say things like: "I can't understand why they would do this". In a single sentence, they dismiss the circumstances of such an individual and emphasise how they would never do the same, subtly concluding that the only variable factor must be that they are just a better person. Add to this that many of those leading these 'grassroots' movements come from privileged backgrounds where the costs of food and clothing don't need to be carefully considered, and indeed weighed up against each other, and the picture becomes clearer. Consider further the fact that those who currently benefit the most from cheap clothing, food and air travel would suffer the most from restrictions on these things whilst their richer counterparts would barely even feel a tickle let alone a pinch and the challenge of forging a coherent plan of action becomes greater still.
Celebrities are frequently the worst offenders when it comes to this, not to say that a political opinion should be disregarded just because it comes from Hollywood. That said, I can't help but raise an eyebrow at pop stars who fly thousands of miles to hold concerts aimed at raising awareness of Global Warming. Others lecture the masses on the perils of climate change, stopping only to sip from their plastic bottles of water shipped directly to them from the far reaches of the earth. Similarly, even for those whose actions are consistent with their actions, no good deed goes unpunished. In the mid 1990s, according to UNICEF, a boycott of Nepalese carpets hand made by child labourers led their employers to go bust and fire all their workers. Consequently, over 5,000 Nepalese girls went from being child labourers to being child prostitutes.
Another obstacle to concerted action to tackle Climate Change in the UK is the overwhelming sense of futility felt across our small country, that without the co-operation of the biggest pollutors, namely the U.S and China, anything we do is rather inconsequential. This fatalism is not wholly unreasonable either. The biggest pollutors in the world are the most reluctant to do anything about it with the Bush administration only just beginning to concede that global warming may just be a problem after all. In addition, all things being equal even if the UK was to go carbon neutral overnight, any benefits to the environment would be quickly offset by China and India.
In sum, only a far-reaching, legally binding multi-lateral effort would prevent the efforts of the most dedicated activists from going to waste, protect the most vulnerable from the fallout and justify the most hefty sacrifices. So, I urge my fellow Lib Dems to forgive me when I say: don't blame individuals, especially those who struggle enough with the everyday circumstances of life, for the failures of government. As for the government, although they have the power and indeed the duty to tackle climate change, they are not omnipotent and have re-election and international power politics to contend with. Furthermore, as pressing as climate change is, it is not as immediate a threat as an asteroid or a tsunami even if it is of far greater proportions. Rather, to paraphrase that great source of modern political wisdom, 'The West Wing', only two things can force a government's hand: politics and money.
History shows that economics is indeed the key to energy efficiency, particularly in the United States. Currently one of the most woeful polluters in the world in spite of the growing acceptance that climate change is a man-made phenomenon which requires urgent solutions, in the eight years between 1973 and 1981, when Climate Change was not the serious consideration it has now become, energy consuption per unit of GNP actually declined by 18%. This was achieved thanks mainly to President Jimmy Carter's reforms such as creating the first cabinet level Department of Energy which oversaw a centrally co-ordinated shift from oil to alternative energy; amendments to the Clean Air Act which forced auto-makers to improve the energy efficiency of cars across the country; extra layers of insulation built into new houses to cut gas bills and tax breaks for people using solar power to meet their energy needs. What prompted such sweeping reforms? A severe oil crisis and the prospect of an immediate economic catastrophe as a result.
Now, it is familiar tensions prompting another push towards energy efficiency in the United States whilst carbon emissions trading, an initiative pioneered by the European Union, is offering a cash incentive for companies to take action. These markets, like any markets however, require greater regulation to ensure their aims are actually achieved - a critical article in the Economist some time ago highlighted how lapses in regulation of markets such as the Chicago Climate Exchange have led to the undermining of its environmental credentials as loggers plundering the Amazon rainforest get rich off the scheme by using ethanol powered trucks. Nonetheless, the benefits are there to be reaped.
So, whilst well meaning people may say that ethics are the key to recycling, at the end of the day it's money that makes the world go round. In time, money can make the world go green too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
