I was quite amazed when I read that. 1972 is not long ago. I don’t quite remember [...]]]> Read an interesting article by George Marshall in the New Internationalist recently about cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80%, a seemingly impossible task until you realise that this would only mean returning to the levels of 1972.

I was quite amazed when I read that. 1972 is not long ago. I don’t quite remember it myself, but I’m not far off. Certainly the world described by the author doesn’t seem that different from what I know, or knew. Of course the standard of living in general was lower then. But his argument is that the improvements since then have massively increased emissions while failing to improve happiness. A massive study by the University of Sheffield reported that perceived loneliness has increased nationally by 40% since 1971. Prof. Tim Jackson has combined various different measures to produce a Measure of Domestic Progress that he argues peaked in 1976.

Part of the reason is that with increased wealth, we have moved further apart. Households are now 30% smaller than in the early 70s, as large families no longer cluster together in one home but are spread over several. By the 1970s most people in Britian had access to a car and major household appliances, but it would be one per household. Since then there has been a multiplication (and also things don’t last, so need to be replaced more often). In the early 70s people tended to heat only the most well-used rooms, e.g. the living-room. Now we heat the whole house, cancelling out any improvements from better insulation and more efficient heating technology. Living rooms are the same temperature they always were, but overall house temperature has risen by nearly six degrees. A by-product of this is the loneliness – even within households, we spend less time together in the living room and more time alone in our own parts of the house, surrounded by our own individual gadgets, which increase emissions…

Going back to 1972 doesn’t sound very attractive. The 70s get a bad name among a lot of people. But when you think about it it’s not so bad. And besides, we don’t have to go back in all respects. We can take advantage of modern technology and other great innovations, but try to restore some of the balance as well. Marshall isn’t arguing that 1972 was a perfect year and that we need to recreate it, but he is saying we can learn a lot by looking back, and I have to say I agree.

Christian Aid has criticised a record high of US$4.4 billion in World Bank funding for coal power stations – a 40-fold increase over the past five years.

I can’t believe that at a time when we are facing the need for urgent action to avoid disastrous [...]]]> Was astonished by a recent snippet from Christian Aid:

Christian Aid has criticised a record high of US$4.4 billion in World Bank funding for coal power stations – a 40-fold increase over the past five years.

I can’t believe that at a time when we are facing the need for urgent action to avoid disastrous climate change, the World Bank is pouring more money into coal than renewable energy. Of course developing nations need to generate power for their growing populations, and renewable energy might be more expensive to set up, but surely it’s better in the long run? It’s things like this that destroy your faith in the existing order. Politicians and administrators alike seem so locked into the existing ways of doing things that they can’t or won’t change until it’s too late.

For example,the following [...]]]> Just read the January/February issue of the New Internationalist, and was depressed at first to see the title “The population panic” on the cover. But it turned out to be a very well-researched series of articles, showing that a lot of the popular assumptions about population growth are false.

For example,the following graph shows that the link between population growth and global warming is weak: the majority of the population growth is in poor countries that do not contribute greatly to global warming, while the countries with low population growth are the ones emitting COs. Basically, global warming is caused by more industry, more flights, more waste, more consumption, and that’s taking place mostly in rich countries with static populations: “So unequal are the consumption levels that one European or North American or Australian may be responsible for more emissions than an entire village of Africans.”

Clearly population growth creates other problems, especially for poor countries where resources are scarce – but again, the articles showed how improved education and social programmes help a lot more than coercive measures. Iran achieved the fastest fertility decline in the world, from 6.6 children per woman in 1970 to 1.9 today, due to widespread public education campaigns about family planning.

I particularly liked the “7 Myths about Ageing”, in which a lot of the scary talk about ageing populations is debunked. Overall I felt not that the problems of population are not as catastrophic as they are sometimes presented. It’s not that nothing needs to be done, but that the problems need to be tackled differently. Poverty and inequality are the main issues, and we need to focus on rich-country consumption levels more than poor-country population levels.

Do you ever have that experience where something you’ve known for a long time suddenly hits you as it’s never hit you before? That happened to me this weekend. Here’s what set it off.

Every few days another huge chunk of ice seems to break off from Antarctica. Last week, for example, the [...]]]>

Do you ever have that experience where something you’ve known for a long time suddenly hits you as it’s never hit you before? That happened to me this weekend. Here’s what set it off.

Every few days another huge chunk of ice seems to break off from Antarctica. Last week, for example, the Wilkins Ice Shelf broke off on Monday. That’s a lump of ice the size of Jamaica. Then on Thursday came news that the Wordie Ice Shelf had disappeared.

Normally I read this stuff and feel generally concerned, but in a vague, unfocused way. This time, somehow, it was different. I just had this image of the Earth seen from afar, with time sped up so that you see the whole of Antarctica just breaking up and melting into the sea in a few seconds. And meanwhile I’m scurrying around writing my blog posts and plugging my book as if nothing bad is happening, and the whole world is focusing on what colour dress Michelle Obama is wearing. It just struck me that we are all absolutely insane.

Then the moment passed, and I went back to the normal ‘vague generic anxiety but nothing much I can do’ mode, and once again I felt able to participate in daily life. I have a sneaking feeling, though, that the brief feeling of utter insanity might be closer to reality.