Climate Change nil, Global Governance nil (half-time score)

So the Copenhagen meeting failed to deliver due to poor teamwork by those on the attack against reactionary, but stubborn, defence.
For many, the star players are in the civil society groups who campaigned tirelessly and whose stamina will need to remain at a high level as the fight continues. The poor performers were the politicans unable to accept national responsibility for getting the pitch into such a mess in the first place.
However, by setting the standard of play at a level consistent with the needs for success - in fact the very survival of the game and the players, there is all to play for in the second half. A good manager now will be urging all concerned to make sure that players and spectators around the world are made fully aware of the statistics involved, so there can be no fudging of the issues or debate about the basis on which the game has to be played. Once the data is absolutely clearcut (a requirement here for the scientists of the game to sort out), then pressure needs to be maintained to get the underperforming players in the political part of the team to deliver. We are at the halfway point in terms of time to get a result and their is everything to play for. In fact we cannot afford to lose.
We need urgently to build the global governance team to beat the climate change challenge so they can then start to address an even bigger challenge - to beat the threat posed by global resource depletion and the need to reduce global poverty and improve the quality of life without economic growth! Now that will really will be a game to watch!

Do we want growth at any price?

On the same day that the Climate Change conference opens in Copenhagen, the British government has announced that it will prevent bankers from receiving vast bonuses and even senior public sector staff from receiving very high salaries.

Just one bank, RBS, has apparently set aside a sum of UK£1.5 billion, (US$2.25 billion) for staff bonuses, even though the bank is 84% owned by the British taxpayer and is therefore actually a public sector entity. Such bonuses are not a reward for success, since the banks would have collapsed due to irresponsible speculation without public funding. The sum compares with US$18.4 billion bonuses awarded to the staff of Goldman Sachs not long after receiving a massive US$10 billion bailout from the US taxpayer. Nice work, if you can get it. However, these bonuses were at a time when unemployment resulting from bank profligacy and inadequate government regulation has combined to increase unemployment throughout the world.

Responsible? Hardly, not just for those receiving the vast sums, but for the expectations it creates among everyone else about what constitutes success and, dare one way it, happiness. For the global economy to continue on this path of unrelenting economic growth and income inflation will simply bring us up against the buffers of the planet’s resource limits even sooner. Yet, the US Congress is unlikely to accept any climate agreement that limits economic growth, despite an historically unprecedented level of GDP. We are consuming as if there is no tomorrow. The simple fact is that the combination of economic growth, income inflation, increased consumption and energy consumption will ensure that there will be no tomorrow.

Isn’t it about time that we asked ourselves how much we need to enjoy a rich quality of life? Once we have a reasonable degree of financial security, surely it’s more important to ask how we want to spend our time and energy in ways that make us more appreciative of the things money cannot buy – friendships, meaningful experiences, adventure and fun, none of which are necessarily dependent on vast incomes. Should we not learn to pity those whose only definition of success or happiness is the size of yacht or the number of houses that they own, or the instant gratification they gain from a chemical high or TV exposure?

Like most of their generation starting a family during the Second World War, my parents struggled financially, but lived lives far richer than many millionaires today. They looked after each other, their neighbours and friends and never needed drugs to be happy. Similarly, Warren Buffet, the richest or second richest man in the world, still lives in the same modest house he bought in the1950s and drives the same car, yet says he is so happy that he tap dances to work.

It’s about time we realised that the price we are exacting for continued growth and consumption will be paid not just by our children and other, innocent, species, but also by ourselves.

Since free market capitalism had to be rescued by old fashioned socialism in the shape of public ownership, it’s time to redirect social and economic policies to encourage more responsible and sustainable ways of living which are not dependent on consumption. In fact, we need to learn to be able to do more with less and reduce consumption. If Gordon Brown is really serious about curbing excessive pay and bonuses, there is an extremely simple way of achieving it that is within the government’s power to impose – progressive taxation on incomes and bonuses. Maybe it’s time for an old fashioned incomes policy which taxes high incomes and bonuses to the point that there is no point in earning them. Then we can start to adopt more sustainable values and lifestyles.

Of course, if the UK goes it alone (or with new-found partner France), those like Fred Goodwin who are bent on financial gain at any price, may relocate to places where the regulatory regime is more indulgent. The real challenge is therefore how to strengthen global governance to protect our common future.

Parenting all over again

She slept through until 7am! - The universal cry of young parents grateful for a full night's sleep and something we are experiencing again after more than thirty years as we now have a 12 week old puppy.

Biboo, named after Rita's nickname when a young girl in Assam, is a black labrador, cute beyond words and the most efficient means of transferring biscuits into energy that I have ever met. Until now, we have had to respond at any time during the night if she moves in case she soils the room, carrying her down into the yard and standing with her in the cold or rain while she performs.

Now, she sleeps through and last night even allowed the cat to sleep in the room. And we don't have to change any nappies!

How to forgive

Yesterday's BBC Radio 4's PM programme (27 November) carried an interview with a man who had been raped and abused from the age of 14 by a Catholic priest.

The interview was one of the most moving and impressive I have heard for a long time. Responding to challenging questions, the interviewee demonstrated incredible eloquence, wisdom and simple humanity regarding how to cope with abuse and abusers and how to apply moral and spiritual values in a secular society.

The interview deserves to be published (I suggested this to the BBC) and is worth litening to on the BBC's i-player system.

Are lower house prices bad news?

BBC Radio 4's flagship 'Today' programme today discussed the UK economy and indicated that there were signs that the fall in house prices may have ceased and are possibly increasing 'at last'. It seems to be widely assumed that a fall in house prices is a bad thing, mainly because of the risk that some people will fall into negative equity as the value of theiur properties becomes less than the size of their mortgages.

In this sense, housing is possibly unique. If I want to buy something desirable, say a new car, a reduction in prices can be considered a good thing - I pay less and more people can afford the item. In fact, a reduction in prices is widely considered desirable for the development of affluence and the reduction fo poverty. The reason that housing is considered different is down to two main reasons.

First, tax and other financial incentives have encouraged more people to become home owners than tenants, so that approximately 70% of all households currently own their homes in the UK. As a majority has been created, home owners inwevitably represent a powerful voice seeking to protect the value of their assets, creating the impression that a reduction in asset values is bad. Yet for the young or less well off wanting to get on the ladder and join the party, a reduction is prices would be highly attractive. What we are witnessing is the media reflecting the interests of the majority, not the most deserving minority assuming, of course, that home ownership is desirable for all in the first place.

The other reason that makes housing different from other assets is that the price is not related to whether they are new or old. With any other commodity or necessity of life, (perhaps except wine!) new ones tend to be more valuable than old ones. With homes, older ones may actually be considered more desirable than new ones, so that depreciation does not apply.

These two factors encourage the assumption that property price increases are natural and desirable. It would be good to think that the current economic crisis might give cause to revise such assumptions and encourage a view that property prices should not be so important that they are regarded as a barometer of economic wellbeing. It might also serve to remind us that what is bad for some groups, is actually very welcome for others. The media, and particularly the BBC, should perhaps acknowledge this more.

It's Spring and lift is in the air!

Apart from a gap of 18 years, when I was travelling, studying, or couldn't afford it (sometimes all three!) I have been a glider pilot since I was 15. Yesterday, Sunday 05 April, I had my first thermal cross country flight in the UK this year and it struck me yet again how gliding is a physical manifestation of the ups and downs of life in general.

Sometimes in gliding - and in life - you make a wrong decision and get away with it, convincing yourself that it was actually your own skill that got you out of the hole, when in fact it was an external force (eg you stumbled into a thermal). Other times, you make the right decision, but neverthesless it all goes pear shaped and you wonder what on earth you have to do for the gods to treat you fairly.

Similarly, when you are up at cloud base and can see for ever, the world is your oyster and the future is full of unlimited possibilities. Experience tells me you need to enjoy this view, since one or two small changes means you can suddenly find yourself grovelling low down over unlandable terrain wondering how it all happened.

What to do under such circumstances? For most of us in gliding, it is possibly dealing with this challenge that is part of the addiction. If you are in the proverbial shit, its best not to keep wriggling. Tell yourself to keep calm and deal with it. Focus on getting out of the shit rather than blaming yourself, or the gods, for dumping you in it. If you fail, at least you are in a better state of mind for dealing with the inevitable landing. If you get out of it, you can reasonably congratulate yourself for not losing the plot. And when you get back up to cloud base, the view is even better!

G20 and its impact

So, world leaders have agreed on tighter regulation and a trillion dollar programme of funding to help economic recovery. The US and UK seem to prefer injecting vast funds to encourage lending, investment and spending. Germany and France prefer to restrict spending and strengthen regulation - a more conservative approach which the Anglo-Saxon countries consider will restrict growth and 'competitiveness'.

One question this raises is to what extent the affluent countries need additional growth? Of course, there are large numbers of poor people in rich countries and the rich can never get enough, but do we really need to keep growing our economies?

When is enough enough? Even lower income groups in the UK have a far higher standard of living than a large proportion of people in developing countries. I realise I am fortunate in having a decent home, a car and many luxuries that others are denied through no fault of their own. However, as a result, I have limited needs to keep spending on more things simply because I feel I have enough and am convinced that many others in the UK are in a similar position. Surely, now is a good time to take stock, ask what constitutes an adequate standard of living and how we can focus efforts on realising such benefits for a far larger proportion of the human family.

Another side of the coin is that many people seem to have far more than they know what to do with. As a result, redistribution through progressive taxation seems to deserve a higher priority than growth, especially given the impact we are collectively having on the environment. So, I agree with the German and French approach to tighten the regulatory controls over banks rather than trying to spend our way out of the crisis. The primary focus of expenditure and investment should be on boosting energy efficient technology and a massive home insulation programme. What do you think?

Israel/Palestine

An impressive, if sobering, assessment by Bruce Anderson in the Independent, 16 February 2009:

Israel is trapped, and the chance of peace is ever more remote.
A crass failure of moral sensitivity has led to equally crass strategic misjudgment.
While the West is preoccupied with a crisis, a tragedy is unfolding. The world's financial system will recover. On the Israel/Palestine peace process, there can be no comparable optimism, for it is not clear whether such a process still exists. No process, no peace; a settlement is further away now than at any time since 1967. Israel seems bent on a course which will lead to its eventual destruction.
There is a hideous irony. The way that events are unfolding is a posthumous triumph for Adolf Hitler. With the winding-up of the Soviet Union, the last of the poisons created by the Second World War could be eliminated from the European bloodstream. Not the Middle Eastern one. It is easy to understand why the Israelis reacted as they did. Once you have suffered a Holocaust at the hands of the race which produced Beethoven, Goethe and Mozart, you lose trust in mankind's benevolence: lose faith in everything except your own soldiers and weaponry.
It is equally easy to understand why the Palestinians reacted as they did. Those who are driven into exile and refugeedom do not feel well-disposed towards their oppressors. The Palestinians felt no linguistic inhibitions, and why should they? They bore no guilt for the Holocaust. In the grip of – understandable – rage, some Palestinian rhetoric developed Nazi resonances. That was a mistake. It aroused every Israeli trauma. We have been here before, many Israelis concluded. This time, no one is going to herd us to our death like cattle. This time, we will get our retaliation in first.
Because of the circumstances in which their Jewish state was created, most Israelis believe that they have two existential necessities, and entitlements. They want to enjoy security and they insist that their neighbours recognise their rights to do so. That does not seem unreasonable. But it is. It fails the highest test of political rationality. It is not realistic.
This does not mean that Israelis should have to live in bomb shelters under constant risk of attack. But they have chosen to live in a dangerous neighbourhood, so there must be compromises. Instead of the delusion of absolute security by imposing a humiliating peace on crushed opponents, Israel should understand the need for a modus vivendi.
Israelis are proud of their achievements over the past 60 years, and rightly so. But most of them are guilty of a crass failure of moral sensitivity leading to an equally crass strategic misjudgment. They fail to understand that their security will always be under threat from their neighbours' misery. Above all, their leaders lack the political wisdom and the moral courage to tell Israelis something which most probably know in their hearts: that to make peace, they will have to take risks.
The first act of the current tragedy began in 1967, after the Six-Day War. Plucky little Israel was master of the battlefield. She had overrun a vast acreage of Arab territory. Almost immediately, even by those who had never been enthusiastic about the State of Israel, distinctions began to be drawn between the pre-'67 boundaries and the 1967 conquests. Israel had a tremendous hand of cards, strategic and moral. There was never a better moment for "in victory, magnanimity".
Israel should have announced that unlike almost every previous military victor, she did not seek territorial gains; her sole war aims were peace and justice. To secure them, she was prepared to trade her conquests, with the obvious exception of the Holy Places in old Jerusalem. On such a basis, and with huge international support, a deal would have been possible. But there were problems. At its narrowest point, pre-'67 Israel was only 12 miles wide. A tank thrust from the West Bank could have cut the country in two. Although the generals cannot be blamed for failing to predict the era of asymmetric warfare in which tank thrusts would only occur in war movies, their insistence on a demilitarised West Bank complicated matters. Then a temptation emerged, like the serpent in the Garden of Eden.
Israel was short of land. Much of the West Bank seemed to be inhabited by raggedy goatherds, primevally picturesque, poor and unproductive. Israeli agriculture would soon have the place flowing with milk and honey, while Israeli architects built new homes for a growing population. So the settlements began. The temptation to colonise the occupied territories was abetted by theology. Under the Jehovah declaration, somewhat preceding the Balfour one and also somewhat more extensive, historic Israel was said to include the West Bank. Israel ate the apple.
In order for Israel's pre-'67 Promised Land to be secure, most of the settlements would have to be evacuated, so that a viable Palestinian state could come into existence. It would always have been virtually impossible to generate the political will for this in Israel. Last week's election results eliminated the "virtually".
Even if it wished to do so, which seems unlikely, the new Israeli government could make no progress towards a Palestinian state. Because of its rigidly proportional electoral system, Israel will be condemned to weak governments blackmailed by extremist parties. The imperative to reach a just peace with Palestine will have no leverage on Israeli domestic politics.
A prosperous Palestinian state would not guarantee Israel's safety. Some young men would still be enticed by fanaticism and violence. But the problem would be much more manageable. If most Palestinians had a stake in a decent future, there would be many fewer suicide bombers – and the '67 vintage Israeli generals were right on one point. Theirs is a tiny country. The first WMD suicide bomber would do terrible damage.
Over the years, Israel has proved that it can deal with conventional threats. Like the rest of us, it is now working out how to cope with terrorism and asymmetric warfare. Israeli opinion would angrily reject any answers that smacked of appeasement. But a Palestinian state is justice, not appeasement. There are alternatives. Israel could abandon the pretence of a two-state solution and offer the Palestinians Israeli citizenship: the end of the Jewish state. Or she could try ethnic cleansing: drive the Palestinians into Jordan. That would be the end of the Jewish state as a moral entity.
Assuming the alternatives to be unacceptable, there is only justice, or continued muddle, with a sullen, resentful Palestinian population awaiting inflammation. That, alas, is almost a certainty, and who knows how far the flames will spread? Israel is a wonderful place, with landscape, culture, increasingly good wine and as much political argument as you can hold. The country emerged out of tragedy. It would be heart-rending if its heroic journey ended in tragedy. Yet that is the likeliest outcome, and it would be Israel's fault.