The ultimate wager: climate sceptics and the precautionary principle

J. S. Mill, someone I'm not accustomed to citing, believed that the true mark of a liberal character was an ability to account for the possibility that one might be mistaken, and consequently that one should never close the door to the possibility of changing their mind. For the purpose of this post, therefore, I'm going to assume that climate change deniers might have a point. I'm going to ignore that man-made global warming has been demonstrated consistently through hundreds of studies, is endorsed by the vast majority of the scientific community, and is an established fact. I'm even going to assume that climate change deniers have motivations other than greed, obstinacy and selfishness. I'm also going to claim that even if all these things are accepted, a policy of inaction against global warming is still a failure and symptomatic of a myopic inability on the side of the deniers to see beyond the confines of their own stunted imaginations.

Settled science! There's no settled science. At least, there isn't if your Rush Limbaugh or any other quack that's too busy congratulating themselves on their own self-righteousness to read or even think a little bit. The alternative to settled science, one would assume, is an 'unsettled' science that hasn't quite yet been gathered to the warming bosom of fact. A slightly awkward and uncomfortable science. Currently anthropogenic climate change is standing in the kitchen of the science house party nervously fingering his tumbler of punch whilst trying to strike up a conversation with his 'unsettled' friend evolution, all the while hoping to catch the eye of gravity, be invited to sit on the beanbag of truth and make a pass at the theory of relativity, whose beauty easily outweighs the rumours he has heard of her complicated temperament. Or something. Fine. Let's assume for now that the science is unsettled. Let's even assume that there was as much as an 80% chance that man-made global warming was nonsense, and in fact some sort of elaborate hoax hatched by socialist tree-loving hippies. What would that mean for all those vigorously trying to save a planet that quite probably just has a bit of a fever and will be getting better shortly?

Well, even if this was the case (which it isn't, just in case I've misled you with my oh-so-serious analysis), I would still scream, cry and demand action. And do you know why? Because the consequences of not doing anything at all and anthropogenic global warming (AGW) being true are so mind-bogglingly bad, so patently and obviously crap that not doing anything is just not an option, even if there was a good possibility we might be mistaken. We're talking countries underwater, starvation, the forced migration of millions of vulnerable people, war, disease, economic and political ruin. Pretty much a shitstorm of biblical proportions. I for one, if this scenario arose, might begin to feel a little guilty for continuing to build enormous coal-fired power plants, I might be slightly uncomfortable about the fact that I had backed Canadian tar sands projects when evidence suggested it was environmentally disastrous, or that I had sought to disparage the renewables sector as uneconomical when it is still clearly in its infancy. I might even regret deciding to hire a stretch Hummer limousine to celebrate a night out - seriously, why do people do this?

In contrast, let us now imagine a world in which action against climate change was much more vigorously pursued than it is currently and it turned out that mankind was in no way responsible for rising temperatures. What might the consequences of such a scenario look like? Well first off, there is a much quoted but highly valuable statistic which suggests that real concerted action on climate change now would cost the world about 1% of global GDP, compared to the 20% that would be forcibly required if warming was left unchecked in an AGW scenario. The world would scarcely be worse off in economic terms than it is at present. Moreover, considerable benefits must surely arise on a local level if dangerous pollutants and chemicals are replaced by greener, and healthier alternatives. A considerable drop in cancer rates in places of high industrial activity would be a likely consequence, as well as a curbing of asthma and other respiratory conditions in children. Economic cooperation and interaction between nations would potentially help to strengthen political bonds and allow for more effective global diplomacy. A more equitable distribution of resources between countries could also result, as well as access to cheaper energy sources in the long term and an end to energy dominance by fossil fuel rich economies, creating not only a fairer planet but a more democratic one.

This approach to the climate change debate is often called the 'precautionary principle,' and simply stated it demands that in the absence of scientific consensus, the burden of proof lies with those committing a potentially damaging action to the environment, rather than with those who would potentially be opposed to that action. To take the fracking debate, the main bugbear of environmentalists is that this hazardous and dangerous method of extracting natural gas was allowed and encouraged by governments without complete and proper due diligence into the potential environmental consequences. In the sense in which I am deploying it here, it presents a Pascal's wager type scenario to climate change deniers with the difference that the evidence for AGW far outweighs any evidence that could be deployed in a debate concerning the existence of god. To use financial jargon, it is a call to capitalists to 'hedge their bets,' because a world with a ruined economy and a collapsed polity is not a world from which profits can be too easily extracted. It was also an argument deployed by Al Gore to try and appeal to the business sensibilities of climate sceptics when it became clear that he could not appeal to their senses of observation, common sense and human decency.

The problem, however, is that the arguments of climate change deniers and climate sceptics are motivated by political ideology, rather than anything strictly rational. The very idea of distributing resources fairly and making the world a more equitable place to live is anathema, and anything that might help to facilitate this, such as subsidising devloping countries to encourage diversification of energy sources, is considered a violation of personal liberty. When your arguments are chiefly with UKIPers, Tea Partyers, and other assorted crackpots, they jettison any idea of sensible debate in favour of jumped up hyperbole and allegations of conspiracy. James Delingpole, the darling of the hard right and Daily Telegraph columnist responded to the precautionary principle with the glib suggestion that we might as well start building precautionary lasers to counteract the threat of alien invasion. Unless he is privy to alien communications that we are all unaware of, this comparison is as fatuous as it is irrelevant. This is also the man who recently published a  book called Watermelons, the assertion being that whilst the climate change movement may be green on the outside, it was red at its core, and presumably filled with pips and water. THESE are the kind of people that we are fighting against, the kind of people that close down debate with steroid-infused chest-thumping about Western moral collapse, and who baulk at any authoritative statement that does not emanate from their own twisted presses. Anyone who disagrees is cast as agents of some dystopic, dictatorial fifth column whose only purpose is to enslave humanity, destroy individual autonomy and force us all to live in mud huts. If the green movement is to triumph (and if it doesn't EVERYONE loses remember), it must win with rhetorical firepower, as well as scientific consensus. Politically-motivated deniers must be exposed for the frauds they most assuredly are.

Eating less meat will make you and the planet much healthier

Soooo just to get my latest blog into some kind of perspective, the latest UNFCC conference in Durban was more or less an unmitigated disaster meaning that it may now be too late to limit a global temperature increase to 2C, the political right is enjoying the kind of popularity that Macauley Culkin enjoyed during my childhood despite the fact that both are clearly evil, when the conservatives are through with it the public sector will consist of an enphysemic homeless person handing out non-waterproof plasters, and in Europe David Cameron has contrived to make Britain look like the sulky toddler at a party that clings to their mother's leg rather than playing with their peers and shouts abuse at anyone that approaches them with some cake.

My response to all this hoopla, aside from sticking my fingers in my ears and whistling assorted Disney classics, has been to think about ways in which each of us as responsible citizens can contrive to make the world a better and more equitable place by adjusting our own lives in very simple and easy ways. If politicians and businesses are going to contrive to destroy the world then we ought to make it as difficult as we can by living our lives as sustainably as possible. That way when Armageddon comes and molten rock is falling from the sky you can die in the knowledge that if there is a heaven you won't be forced to share it with Lord Monckton and his Gollum eyes.

Food, as many of you will know, is a big passion of mine and I often excercise my interest to irritating extremes. Recently, however, I have been making a conscious effort to alter my food intake considerably by eating much less meat and fish than I would ordinarily. Now I love meat, properly love it. I will go purposely out of my way to look around a butchers, not to buy anything but just to experience that wonderful odour of good quality, well-aged produce. Meat is like food porn, and the sight of an expertly jointed rolled pork shoulder is enough to awaken something primal in me. So cutting down on the amount of meat in my diet is rather like asking an alcoholic to switch to shandy.

However, I think a growing number of people are aware of the importance of not only choosing their meat more carefully, but limiting their intake altogether. Thanks to Mr. Fearnley-Whittingstall's latest campaign, and the activities of some very important organisations, the meat debate is squarely in the political mainstream. However, when it comes to the reasons behind such a shift in public opinion people are more hazy, particularly in the link between meat production and the environment. This blog is intended, therefore, to provide some insight into this and explain exactly why we should be thinking very carefully about the things we put in our mouths.

To briefly summarise, eating less meat can be beneficial in five specific ways: it minimises the suffering of animals, curbs deforestation, particularly of the Brazilian rainforest, produces less greenhouse gas emissions, allows room for less intensive farming practises, and improves the health of people. Food systems are inextricably linked to the environment and, in an era of globalised trade, are also an inextricable link between populations. By altering the way the world consumes meat, the planet can be a more equitable, healthier and sustainable place to live.

Animal Suffering: Now I'm not going to get into an philosophical argument here about whether it is morally right or wrong to kill animals. I eat meat, and don't consider doing so a crime. What I abhor, however, is the cruel and inhumane methods used to cultivate much of the world's meat produce. In a circumstance where you cannot be sure of the provenance of an animal or the condition in which it was kept you should avoid it. I'm not going to argue this but assume it as a self-evident fact and unless you're emotionally bankrupt you should agree with me. If this means eating less meat and buying better quality then all the better.

Globally we use around 60 billion animals every year in the production of food. That's about 9 animals per person providing us with milk, cheese, eggs and of course meat. On current trends, this number is projected to double by 2050 as the world's population edges over the 9 billion mark. In reality, meat production is set to grow much higher as developing countries demand ever greater amounts of meat for its citizens. China, for example, now consumes more than half of the world's pork and has swiftly moved from being a predominantly vegetarian society to an increasingly affluent omnivore. With such a surge in demand, the logical and myopic answer in the market will be to increase yields by intensifying meat production. For want of available land and resources, this will necessitate an increase in unethical indoor farming.

I don't think I need to go into the practises of  intensive indoor farming and exactly why I'd like to subject some of the owners of these businesses to similar treatment, but suffice to say the suffering caused to animals is unimaginable. Often they cannot move and become deformed, they develop sores which are not treated, they are fed a diet of soy, antibiotics and hormones and forced to grow as quickly as possible, and they are then slaughtered to produce sub-standard pre-packaged cuts of meat. Put simply, cheap and plentiful meat means more pain for millions of animals and a worse tasting product on your plate.

Deforestation: To meet the demands of buoyant meat-hungry populations, not only will more intensive farming be required, a continuation and increase in deforestation is also a necessity. Mankind already uses about 75% of the world's available land, and, in the scramble for ever more pasture and arable land, forests have been particularly hard hit. Cattle is one of the largest drivers of deforestation globally, and the biggest culprit in this respect is the Brazilian beef market.

Beef is big business in Brazil, and, despite international murmurings to the contrary, the government aids cattle farmers in the destruction of the rainforest. Not only is this devestating in terms of habitat loss, but it also destroys a natural weapon against climate change that would ordinarily be recycling vast quantities of carbon dioxide. The cattle industry in Brazil is already worth an estimated $7 billion and accounts for about 14% of global deforestation - that's more than the total deforestation of any other country in the world except Indonesia. Of the rainforest itself, between 70% and 80% of previously forested land is now used for grazing livestock whilst a large portion of the remainder is given over to growing food for cattle. Despite being the world leader in beef exports, the government has pledged to increase the country's output over the coming years.

Emissions: The livestock industry is a prodigious contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and is responsible for 18% globally. That is more than the entire transport sector. However, whilst everyone is aware or at least becoming aware of the obvious link between driving a car and warming the earth, the link between meat and climate change is less obvious and even more dangerous. Animal farming is responsible for 9% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions mainly derived from the ongoing destruction of vital carbon capture areas of forest. More damaging still is the fact that the industry also accounts for 37% of anthropogenic methane, a gas with up to 23 times the global warming potential of CO2. Furthermore, it is the cause of 65% of anthropogenic nitrous oxide, an even more dangerous chemical with potentially 296 times the global warming capacity of CO2. Leaving aside the incredible water pollution exacted by animal wastes, antibiotics, hormones, tannery chemicals, fertilisers and pesticides, these numbers alone should be enough to convince anyone of the dangers of expanding this industry further.

Intensive Farming: Intensive farming practises, both animal and arable, account for a wealth of pollution and habitat destruction and it has been suggested that livestock production, particularly though the destruction of the rainforest, is the single biggest contributor to loss of biodiversity worldwide. The current rate of species loss is up to 1000 times faster than it would in an ordinary evolutionary cycle. It is vital, therefore, that every effort be made to challenge intensive farming practises wherever possible and supplement these with an emphasis on free range and organic farming.

Shockingly, according to the UN, pasture land amounts to a whopping 26% of the ice-free land on the planet. If we also account for the fact that feedcrops make up 33% of total arable land, we find out that livestock production employs 70% of all agricultural land and comprises 30% of the land surface of the planet. Now, the global average of animal product intake per person currently sits at 38% of total protein. If we lowered that to just 30%, we could free up approximately 27 million km2 of land that could be used for arable farming or else left to regrow and provide valuable carbon capture. In so doing, less strain is placed on our food system resulting in less need for deforestation and less reliance on intensive farming methods.

Health: To maintain a healthy diet, a study by Costello in 2009 suggested regulating your intake of animal products to about 20% of your total protein intake. This amounts to about 90g per person per day.  Predictably, advanced Western countries currently sit well above this recommendation, whilst other countries are significantly below. In the UK we each average about 218g of meat per day, whilst in the US the number is even higher at 342g. In contrast Rwandans consume about 12g of meat each per day, whilst people in Sierra Leone manage about 17g.

I think these statistics speak volumes both about the incredibly inequitable distribution of food across the globe, and the relative health problems of these populations. Obesity and malnutrition are closely linked to meat consumption and whilst 1 in 5 people in the UK is obese and 1 in 3 in the US, 1 in 3 children in Sierra Leone is malnourished and in Rwanda over 50% of children are without enough food. By reducing our intake of meat in the West, and increasing the amount of meat consumed by poor countries we can help make the planet a whole lot healthier.

Some of the statistics I've cited here are mind-bogglingly scary and have hopefully shed some light the severe impact that irresponsible farming practises are having on the environment. I'm trying to stick to the 90g rule as far as possible, but if you want to make it easier you can just cut out meat entirely at lunchtimes, or during the week if you're brave, or for at least one or two days a week. It really will make an enormous difference. If you're interested in finding out some more info, or checking my sources, I've listed some links below.

Eating the Planet - Report commissioned by Friends of the Earth and Compassion in World Farming
Livestock's Long Shadow - Influential report by the FAO
Slaughtering the Amazon - Commissioned by Greenpeace
Obesity and Meat
Meat consumption per capita
Malnutrition in Rwanda, and Sierra Leone

Jeremy Clarkson is my moral compass

It will not have passed many people's attention that Jeremy Clarkson is in the news again for being a complete tit. This time, however, his baited comments were not directed at environmental groups, the labour party, Americans, or even the dreaded thought police, but the public sector and specifically public sector workers complaining about being made a scapegoat for the excesses of a bunch of people that ruined the world economy through greed, selfishness and generally being unpleasant shits. But, according to Mr. Clarkson, nurses, teachers, care workers, and street cleaners are the real troublemakers and should be shot for their lack of discretion, and for their vile demands to be treated fairly and with equanimity. More than that, their families should be encouraged to watch this spectacle and presumably bathe in the blood of their deceased relatives as a penitence and sacrifice to the gods of the free market economy. Of course, it was all a joke, however, as demonstrated by the balanced observation that traffic had thinned considerably on the day of the strike allowing Mr. Clarkson to speed around in his overpowered, stuffing sock of a car to his hearts content. So at least some good came of it. As jollies go, it was the equivalent of reeling off dead baby jokes to a woman that had recently miscarried.
So far so tactless, but the media shitstorm that has greeted Mr. Clarkson's latest proclamation of his own personal brand of common sense has brought this cretinous excuse for an organism an outrageous level of publicity, as well as a torrent of abuse. So much, in fact, that there are some, including even John Prescott who once appeared on Top Gear, that have been calling for his head. Also noting that his conveniently salaried £1million a year job at the BBC is a rather large amount of money to be paying to someone whose existence boils down to an ability to think an act like a spoilt 12 year old with the moral fibre of a nematode. (Incidentally you could hire 47 new nurses on that salary alone, which is probably enough of a reason to overthrow the current world order in itself.) But hey, it's cool, no worries, he was just being 'silly,' right Dave? Silly old Jeremy with his execution jokes. You should see him pull out the holocaust ones at Christmas. What a silly bugger he is.
When thinking about this £1 million figure, it continued to strike me as quite a lot of money. Surely you can't get paid a million pounds just for doing that? Logically it has to defy some law of physics and at any moment the earth will evaporate in a puff of embarrassment. He drives around in cars...for a living, and then tells people what it is like to drive a car. Then he drives another one to the South Pole. £1 million. It just didn't make sense to me and the more I tried to fathom it, the less it would fit into place. Then, suddenly, it dawned on me. Jeremy Clarkson must be doing something more, something important and worthy of such a ludicrously high salary. I started to think more deeply about the messages hidden beneath his buffoon like façade, and the deeper I dug the more clearly I could see it. Jeremy Clarkson is actually saving the planet.
Bear with me.
What service could a man possibly be rendering when his every utterance, his every waking thought, is an affront to decency and goodness? Between 1587 and 1983, the Catholic Church, when debating a potential canonisation or beatification, would appoint a devil's advocate to argue the case against sainthood even if everyone stood unanimously in favour. Up until recently, I thought that all that was left of this practice was a rather irritating expression and a substandard film about lawyers. It is only now that I know that the position of devil's advocate has now been occupied by none other than BBC's own Jeremy Clarkson. What's more, he's not simply arguing against the divine nature of a single individual and thus throwing their goodness into stark contrast, he's playing devil's advocate to the world in order to save us from ourselves. By sacrificing his life to the pursuit of inane stupidity, and short sighted, cruel, right wing politics, he is helping to direct and shape the lives of every single man, woman and child on this planet. From this day forward, all we need know is that we should always endeavour to perform the exact opposite of anything that Jeremy Clarkson says, does, thinks or feels, whilst thanking him for his incredible sacrifice to humanity. He is Krang to our TTMT, Joker to our Batman, and pollution to our Captain Planet. He defines and shapes us as a universal counterpoint, and for this I will always be eternally grateful.
You are a hero Jeremy Clarkson. Never forget it.