20-20 Hindsight - The Wisdom of Politics

If you had asked 50 random people in any High Street of any sizable town in Britain what the effect of a reduction of 2.5% off the rate of VAT would actually do to their spending habits, I think the answer would have been little or nothing.

Why then, several weeks after the rate cut was introduced, are Opposition Politicians like David Cameron and Nick Clegg only now questioning what effect it would have? Suddenly, with the benefit of Retail Spending data, which revealed exactly what any person in the street would have predicted that the rate drop had no effect, why now have these Politicians suddenly become wise and are haranguing the daft Ministers that introduced it?

Probability Theory

I watched an absorbing part of the Christmas Royal Institution Lectures yesterday where an able Professor showed that if you drop a small ball into a box which had a triangular set of wooden pegs to interrupt its path, the ball would randomly drop into one of eight slots. Do it again to an individual ball and again the next ball randomly chooses a slot. If, however, you suddenly drop a whole jar full of identical balls into the box, the balls would fall into the slots so that the height of each stack of balls in each slot exactly followed the pattern of the mean distribution of probability. In other words, individually the balls are random and hard to predict but when taken over a whole sample, they behave according to plan.

So applying the same theory to a minor 2.5% cut in VAT rate to an individual's spending pattern it seems you can't predict it but when an overall saving of £12.5bn is at stake, surely the great mass of people would spend according to plan - i.e. a lot more?

When Theory Does Not Mirror Reality

Probability Theory isn't actually applicable in this instance. Common sense would tell you that 2.5% off VAT would not do a jot to spending patterns, because the individual gain in savings is pathetic. After rising tax bills, fuel and energy prices, food bills, plus a fall in the available credit supply, people are looking to far greater savings to stimulate spending. Although John Lewis reported a good start o the Sales Season, anecdotal evidence on the number of people in town centres and the High Street generally show that people are simply not spending as much.

And that's because it is not about minor savings, it's about the lack of money generally and the uncertainty surrounding the future as the recession bites and hits jobs.

Reality has a habit of proving theories to be just what they are - theories.

The Progress of The Bail Out

Mervyn King has been pretty succinct. It is his belief that the £800bn so far pumped into banks is not enough to stop more toppling. In fact, he has alluded to potential wholesale public ownership of banks - a far cry from the theories of free market forces. The money pumped in has merely kept fat cat executives in a job and worrying about how they get the gravy train going again and to generate the vast bonuses of before. Meanwhile, those loiterers at the cash tills and backrooms get made redundant on mass as they are nothing more than hangers on.

What the bail out did was shore up a status quo, a way of life. These besuited people, while feeling some remorse allegedly for the mess we are in, still do not slash their own salary bills and get back to the core business of capital raising and lending, instead they want to continue along the lines of before. We spent £800bn to keep a slim population of elite executives in their jobs while a further 600,000 to 1 million people will pay with their job for their lack of talent.

I may be being a bit harsh and slightly left of the truth, but I don't see the economic benefit filtering through from this huge bail out - in fact I have seen pretty much the opposite. So when Darling and Brown gave out all the money we will have to fund, where were the tight stipulations on how it would be used and spent? The answer is they just followed what the Theory said in their old books. Spend and it will all come right.........probably?

Accountability vs Responsibility

For those who follow my Blog, I have consistently picked on themes of management in business and one theme is Accountability vs Responsibility. In the worst economic crisis since The Great Depression, I would like to see more than just theory used but some hard nosed common sense and the bearing of accountability for the mistakes - the ones so far and future ones. I cannot help thinking, after 10 years of flowering up our economic position thanks to a false boom based on unrealistic asset growth, that we are allowing a Government that so horribly got it wrong to try and rekindle the same bonanza.

Common sense says it cannot work again - so why are we letting them get away with it a second time?

Climate Change - Real or Another Scientific Example of Hokum?

If you should Google 'Climate Change' long before you find the faddy sites from 'greenists' you will find information from the FT, the UK Government, Scottish Government, the Met Office, the Royal Society and Chevron. All bristling with compelling evidence that the earth's climate has changed due to human intervention.

In a discussion over dinner, a friend of mine asserted that this is just hokum presented by the green lobby based on misrepresentation of the very facts used to argue the case for Climate Change.

I must admit that I am personally concerned about whether such 'greenist' evidence is exaggerated after watching parts of Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' which frankly scared the pants off me, but I am also a pragmatist.

Common Sense - My Opinion

The earth has existed for billions of years and in that time there have been many incredible cycles as the earth and then life has evolved and in that long expanse of time there have been periods when the earth has alternated between very cold and very warm, full of noxious gas and even had its poles reversed. That's what we might describe as the phenomenon known as Nature at work. As the late Carl Sagan explained in his excellent series, 'The Cosmos', if the entire history of the planet were expressed as a calendar of a single year, humans appeared at approximately the last hour of the 31st of December. We are THAT new to this earth.

In that short human history compared to the rest of earth's age, humans have subjected the planet to a whole host of things from pollution to nuclear weapon explosions to World Wars to ozone depletion and lots more all of which have never occurred before in the cycles of the earth. Yet all of that has occurred in an amazingly short period of the earth's history and as we consume the vast resources left to us by that history we present ourselves with the conundrum about the earth's future.

The crux of the matter is that common sense says that human intervention has changed the planet because most of what we have done has never occurred before. But the 'Denyer' viewpoint would say that over a long period the earth has cycles anyway and our trivial existence will have no real effect.

'Denyers' see the issue as a question of lifestyle - much like smoking, choosing what cars they drive or wanting a free world to live in - because capitalism, and therefore the perceived progression of humans, does not square with some of the outcomes of believing that we have to do something about emissions and the like. Legacy is not their concern.

The 'Greenists' would assert the question of Climate Change, while rapidly upon us, is actually about legacy. If we do not do anything about the world we live in today, it will be future generations who will be affected by our laissez faire indecision. We will leave them a depleted and uninhabitable planet, and in their eyes, every minute we delay doing something about it could cost future generations years of life expectancy.

This is something I am very much bought into. Our responsibility as humans today is to make sure we leave a planet capable of sustaining human life for as long as possible in the future. Sticking our heads in the sand about Climate Change today will curtail the lives of our future generations, possibly even our next generation.

It's as fundamental as wanting your child to have a good chance, possibly any chance, in life.

The Evidence

A quick bit of research shows there are around 12 assertions by Climate Change opponents and the Royal Society has put together a team who looked at these and using evidence from sources such as the IPCC and the United States National Academy of Sciences, they answered these questions so I summarise their findings - forgive me if trivialise some of their learned research:

• The IPCC is too politicised so does not reflect the uncertainty of scientific opinion

In 2001, the Bush Administration commissioned the United States National Academy of Sciences to assess the IPCC's assertions. The answer was, “The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.”

That from the guys who did not sign the Kyoto Protocol.

• Many scientists do not think Climate Change is a problem and have even signed petitions

It's true there are plenty of scientists who dispute some of the evidence either in part or wholly. However, in the journal Science in 2004, Oreskes published the results of a survey of 928 papers on climate change published in peer-reviewed journals between 1993 and 2003. She found that three-quarters of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the view expressed in the IPCC 2001 report that human activities have had a major impact on climate change in the last 50 years, and none rejected it.

Many of the opposing views are those from scientists funded by the US oil industry who even use the very same evidence to assert that action on Climate Change will have the opposite effect and actually bring about changes faster than doing nothing.

To illustrate this illogical thinking, I saw Top Gear the other night where Clarkson showed that the new nickel batteries in the Toyota Primus car cost more to the environment to make than the good they bring about. That's a fair comment. In the same program he also showed that a Primus driven flat out for 10 laps consumed more fuel per gallon than a BMW M3 driven at the same speed. He's right.

But he misses the point - driving BMW M3s or not having the Primus is not an acceptable alternative. Finding a Primus that is less cost on the environment is. Poo-pooing research and progress has been the stable argument of Denyers for years and has stifled the alternatives to the status quo.

• There is little evidence to show that the earth is warming - in fact parts are cooler and some parts of Europe were much warmer previously

The IPCC concluded that global warming is not uniform although evidence shows that the earth has warmed on average by o.6 of a degree centigrade in the 20th century and even pinpointed the 90s as the warmest decade since records began in 1861 and 1998 was in fact the warmest year on record.

There is a problem with this evidence, and I sympathise with the opponents. Over the billions of years of earth history, we have only measured temperature since 1861 - what if every period of a similar length showed a cycle of heating and cooling? And what of these areas that don't rise in temperature? Many argue that urbanisation causes 'heat islands' and for this reason the South Seas and Antarctica have not changed much in temperature.

Certainly, this evidence is not convincing on its own.

• The earth may be getting hotter but this has nothing to do with greenhouse gases such as CO2 - it's the sun's variations

About half the sun's radiation which reaches our atmosphere gets to the surface. Some of this radiation is absorbed and some of it is radiated back into the atmosphere which is then absorbed by 'greenhouse' gases such as CO2, methane and water vapour which helps keep the earth around 20 degrees centigrade warmer than it otherwise would be, this is known as the 'greenhouse effect' and it's what keeps us alive.

Increases in the concentration of greenhouse gases has caused a greater effect. CO2 strongly absorbs infra-red radiation, I know that much from my chemistry and the concentration of CO2 has increased from 280 parts per million before 1750 to 368 parts per million in the period up to 2000, a 31% rise. This is a level in CO2 in the atmosphere which has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years of the earth's history. Doubters point out that the increase in CO2 is in fact due to Climate Change not caused by it. Funny that it has only risen that sharply since 1750, the dawn of the mechanised world.

The IPCC acknowledge that solar radiation and decreased volcanic activity played a part in the early 20th century, but the latter half was all ours.

• There is no accurate method of predicting temperature change in the future

Good - let's ignore it then and carry on emitting freely. I find that argument in the heartland of all doubters. However, if you just go back and think about the levels of concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and look at the correlation between average earth temperature rise and the rise on CO2 levels, there would be some cause for concern at least.

• Scientists mislead us by pointing out extreme weather as indicative of Climate Change

Of course, you cannot put down the extreme weather conditions like Bocastle or New Orleans to to the rise in CO2 emissions alone - the earth is far more complex than that. Vast eruptions like Mount St Helena may just as well have been more of a cause. However, if you are happy that's the only answer, fine. Just remember that the IPCC say that there is now a 66-90% likelihood of an increase in volatile weather systems like El Nino due to the rise in concentration of greenhouse gases like CO2.

• There is conflicting evidence that polar ice caps are melting, heck, they're even getting thick in Antarctica

The Arctic ice cap thinned by 40% in the last few decades and by 15% since the 1950s - you can measure that for yourself. The Antarctica has not experienced the same. No worries then. It's just that if the Greenland ice sheet continues to melt at the same rate then a further 7m will be added to sea level. I'm ok, I live inland and on a high point. Those on the coast, kiss your backsides goodbye.

• There is little evidence that sea level has risen due to Global Warming

Sea level has risen on average between 0.1 and 0.2 cm per year during the 20th century, that's about 15cm then overall. I don't suppose the water flows off the corners of the earth when ice melts so expect it to continue. There are other factors which change our apparent sea level such as isostatic rebound but that's more to be with land shape than water level.

• Even if Climate Change is occurring it won't be dangerous

Keep your head in the sand and you'll be okay. If temperature continues to rise at the same rate and unevenly, then common sense, not science, says we are in for some rough weather. Many believe that methane (CH4) has far more of an effect in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas and that's pretty much down to the output of all those cow farts etc. The problem is that CH4 is short lived in the atmosphere whereas CO2 has a prolonged life. Besides, there has not been a corresponding rise in CH4 concentrations over the period of measurement to explain the temperature rise only CO2 - so perhaps those little CH4 molecules have changed their fundamental properties and started absorbing far more radiation. We chemists, if I may call myself one, would argue that nature says that cannot happen.

• What evidence is there to show higher temperatures are bad for you?

Maybe Newcastle will no longer sell coal but nice claret - is that so bad? Well that's fine so long as the poor Southerners covered in water have the wherewith all to pay for it. As much good as it may bring, there would be corresponding consequences - again it's just common sense to realise that sunbathing at the North Pole is probably not good.

• There are too many uncertainties to make Climate Change believable

Again I can sympathise - the world is an uncertain place and we would sure like to believe that these nasty things cannot happen. Temperature itself is a man-made phenomenon and is simply the approximate indication of the energy given off through the friction of molecules moving about - it averages it out in a form we can understand. But down below are those molecules are moving and colliding and as they heat up they move faster and collide more. We know these tiny things can have incredible effects when summed up and this is the problem. The faster we make them move the more uncertain it gets.

What most agree upon is that it is better to not make them go much faster than they need to.

• The Kyoto Protocol is a waste of time as the US will not ratify it

I don't have to read the evidence here. Like Clarkson's Primus - if attempting to make something more effective at controlling emissions is itself contributing more to the problem (allegedly) then it's no point in trying. It argues that we just sit here and do nothing - that option is for cissies.

It's Not Our Future - It's Their Future

And we are back to square one. What will be, will be - Nature itself is more a cause of Climate Control than man and so we should do nothing. By the same argument, then what are we doing trying to fight the elements like cold, heat, disease, famine and what indeed are we inventing things for if not to better ourselves and survive and thrive as a species if indeed there is no point as Nature will win?

It's the argument that is applied with equal measure to the Third World - it's beyond our personal control so we leave it. Only when it threatens the onslaught of capitalism, democracy and freedom do we actually allow our Governments to do anything. For years 'Greens' have been ridiculed as faddists and using science wrongly, causing more disasters in trying to dispose of toxic wastes in Fjords than the open sea as a for instance.

Well, the capitalist world and corporations have a nasty track record of putting the pursuit of their own goals, well-being and wealth ahead of the general welfare of the world and others. If left to their own devices they would carry on regardless.

The future is ahead and we will be long dead by the time the consequences of our current actions and inactions have taken full effect. So we can either bury it or think, 'Is that what I want for my children or their children's children?'

For all of you who believe that you would die for your children, think only of this - are you prepared to let them die for you? Because that is a very likely outcome of your denial of this issue today.