Rob Lyons

Influenza Derek

2009-07-02T10:05:00.004+01:00

On 1 July, I took part in a panel discussion at the World Conference of Science Journalists on the topic of whether the media had overexaggerated the threat of 'swine flu'. Here are my opening comments:

'My favourite satirical website, The Daily Mash has a story in response to the advice from doctors not to hold swine flu parties. The story has doctors warning that all children's parties are a stupid idea, reminding readers what happened to the widescreen TV last time. The story also describes the threat from swine flu as having been upgraded from 'elaborate hoax' to 'about as bad as a badger attack'.

This indicates the cynicism that media reporting of epidemics attracts. From mad cow disease and bird flu to SARS and West Nile virus, we've seen a pattern emerge in which diseases are presented to us as if they're the Black Death only to find they're nothing of the sort. In relation to swine flu, we've seen sensationalist hack reporting - get an expert to say a scary number and present it as if this is a real possibility rather than the worst case scenario. More often, we've seen more balanced reporting, but as part and parcel of coverage that amounts to overkill, and quite often highly speculative overkill. Alongside some lazy reporting, there are plenty of individual journalists producing well-informed copy but in the context of over-the-top, blanket coverage, the subtleties are often lost.

Journalists need to take some responsibility for all of this. If the truth is that we don't have any real idea what is happening, then we should say 'we don't know' and we shouldn't make it the top story. We live in a time when judging what is important is tricky, and the media plays an important role in that. If a story is the lead item for days on end, then it doesn't matter really how cautious and balanced the actual content, the implication - the body language of the story, if you like - suggests we should be alarmed. If this is repeated from one health panic to the next, then a certain amount of cynicism is bound to result.

But I'd also like to make a few points, which I've only really got time to assert, to put this situation into context because it would totally wrong to blame the media alone for what has happened.

Firstly, we need to separate the reality of disease - which may or may not be serious - from our predisposition to expect the worst. We live in a period where risk and fear have become central to the way we understand the world. We seem to be almost on the lookout for the next bad thing that might happen. Not only do we treat every new potential disease as an epidemic, we have stretched the term epidemic to include things that are not in themselves diseases. I think the way in which an average increase in weight in the Western world has been redefined as the obesity epidemic is symptomatic of this outlook.

In her book, AIDS and its Metaphors, the late American commentator Susan Sontag described this very well. She talked about the 'striking readiness of so many to envisage the most far-reaching of catastrophes'. This was not so much Apocalypse Now as Apocalypse From Now On.

Secondly, we need to understand the different ways in which the authorities respond. In terms of practical action - monitoring infections, analysing new pathogens, taking steps to create a vaccine and so forth - I think this is all fairly sensible. I think we may have been mugged about on the size of the Tamiflu order but that's about it. On the other hand, the decision to issue a leaflet to every home in the country was a waste of time and money - the contents of it were trite and unhelpful because we weren't yet in a position to give a sensible assessment of how dangerous swine flu might be. It was a matter of being seen to be doing something, even if the result was likely to be more alarm.

As for the debate about what phase the infection was at and whether we officially have a pandemic was both ridiculous and surreal. Most people quite reasonably assume that 'pandemic' means something akin to 'uncontrollable plague' rather than merely being a description of how wide the geographic spread of infection has become. And the talk of phase 5 and phase 6 is rather like the escalation of a nuclear incident to Defcon 1. Nor was Margaret Chan's comment that swine flu is a threat to all of humanity particularly constructive.

But governments and health quangos rely on winding us up ever so often to justify their existence.

If we are to stop this kind of thing, we need to have a much more honest and hard-headed approach to outbreaks like this. I believe that the media and the authorities need to take considerable responsibility for failings in this area. To overhype disease is simply counterproductive, both in relation to whatever the current problem is and in ensuring cooperation and speedy responses from the public in the future. But tackling the wider climate in which we appear overly sensitive to every kind of risk is going to be much harder.'

One common theme of the discussion afterwards was the controversy over the naming of H1N1/Swine/Mexican flu. Mike Gannatt, a former high-level press secretary and risk communicator within government, speculated that perhaps we needed some kind of automated naming system. I suggested we copy the hurricane model, and give new influenza viruses names, in which case this one could be Influenza Derek.

Sadly, the woman from the WHO in the audience didn't realise I was joking and said she would bring the suggestion back to her bosses... Still, if you can name the thing that flooded New Orleans 'Katrina', who's to say it's a stupid idea?

Mumbai after 26/11

2009-03-13T14:30:00.001Z

I visited Mumbai in January and wrote this based on my experiences and the debate in the run up to the Indian elections.

One of the great tourist attractions in Mumbai is the Gateway of India, the Arc de Triomphe-like arrival point for ships to the city, built in 1924 as an expression of Britain's imperial might and the scene of the final departure of British troops in February 1948. But the backpackers and travellers tend to be looking across the road these days, at the magnificent and somewhat discomfiting sight of the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel, the most famous landmark of 'India's 9/11'.

The attacks on the 26 November - '26/11' as it's now called here - have left surprisingly few scars on the Taj. While the old part of the hotel is closed as the extensive internal damage is assessed and repaired, externally there is little sense that this was the site of a pitched gun battle a few weeks ago. Indeed, the modern, tower extension to the Taj reopened in December, less than four weeks after the attacks.

The weird sensation of being somewhere so familiar from our TV screens is even stronger at Leopold's Café on nearby Colaba Causeway. But the attacks have hardly scared the punters away. Indeed, my guide - once a regular at Leopold's in her college days - bemoaned the fact that even on a Tuesday night it was now hard to get a seat and we were crammed into a corner of the upstairs bar underneath a big TV screen. Clearly, being able to say you've eaten at the (slightly) bullet-scarred café is a selling point to the regular stream of backpackers passing through town.

Elsewhere, life in Mumbai seems barely touched. The relentless noise of beeping horns provides a soundtrack to a city that is the very embodiment of 'bustling'. Yet the media is full of debate about what is to be done about terrorism. India Today demands that the country should 'Declare War on Terror. Indeed, every big newspaper seems to be campaigning against terror in one way or another. The big stories of the last couple of weeks have been a dispute affecting petrol supplies, a couple of major financial scandals and the awards success of Slumdog Millionaire. But the constant underlying theme has been the issue of terrorism.

Indeed, the calls for action predated the November attacks - and no wonder. According to the US National Counterterrorism Center, over 1,000 people died in terrorist attacks in 2007 alone. In September 2008, following bombings in the capital, Delhi, which killed 20 people, the media seemed united in demanding tough legislation. The Hindustan Times demanded that 'firmer anti-terror laws are put in place - never mind where the suggestions come from', while the Times of India suggested that 'At this time of crisis, some of the liberties that we take for granted might have to be curbed to ensure that terrorists, who follow no norms and rules, are effectively restrained'. The cries have only got louder since 26/11.

This bunker mentality has asserted itself in everyday life in sometimes farcical ways. At Churchgate Station - where 1,500 commuters pass in and out every minute during rush hour - walk-through metal detectors have been installed. While the lights on top flicker from 'WALK' to 'STOP' as a constant stream of passengers set off the detectors, the police stand around unable to usefully do anything. Stopping everyone would be impractical. Indeed, during my travels round India, these metal detectors seem to have become the must-have accessory for almost every government building, posh hotel or shopping mall - and they're all pretty much useless.

More ominous is a distinct anti-Pakistan mood, reinforced by politicians looking for an easy explanation for the 26/11 attacks, most notably with the 'dossier' of evidence linking the attacks to Pakistan presented by the Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, two weeks ago. Even if the attacks originated in Pakistan, it seems unlikely that the terrorists had official Pakistan government backing. But that hasn't prevented populist hawks from turning up the anti-Pakistan rhetoric. Neel Mukherjee, writing in the Guardian, illustrated this trend with the case of a Mumbai bookstore whose owner had had a friendly visit from local cops 'suggesting' that it might be wise to remove Pakistani authors from his shelves.

The reason for my visit to India - to act as a judge for the schools debating competition Debating Matters - provided an ideal opportunity to talk to Mumbai residents about the attacks. Chatting with teachers and students from the suburb of Thane, they were in accord that life had got back to normal almost straightaway. Like people in New York and London, there was a certain amount of nervousness about future attacks. So, one parent asked in a debate on terrorism and civil liberties what - if anything - could be done to protect her children while they were out at the mall. But people had to get on with their lives. As one fellow judge joked, Mumbai seems so chaotic it's a wonder anyone noticed an attack going on.

Another interesting viewpoint was provided by another debating judge, a senior Mumbai policeman. His biggest headache was the traffic arrangements for the forthcoming Mumbai Marathon rather than another act of terrorism. But he was also concerned at trends towards a greater involvement of the military in day-to-day life: 'Armies are for borders; cops are for cities', he told me. In New Delhi, uniformed men with automatic weapons seemed almost as commonplace as the metal detectors.

While ordinary Indians have been getting on with their lives, many outsiders seem to have lost their nerve. One distinguished doctor I met in New Delhi, who preferred not to be named, complained that a major international medical conference he had helped to organise, which was due to take place in the city next month and had taken three years to prepare, had been cancelled after the sponsors got cold feet. The irony is that a conference that would have been a thousand miles and three months removed from the 26/11 attacks has been shifted to the apparent safety of Washington DC, scene of the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon. The disgruntled conference organiser told me that a number of other big conventions had been cancelled.

India is a huge country with multiple political problems, many the legacy of the disastrous carve-up of the sub-continent when the British left, 60 years ago. While ordinary Indians may feel even more cynical about politics and politicians than their counterparts in the West, the government is still accountable to them at the ballot box and India is a largely open society. The frenetic and sometimes alarming behaviour of drivers whizzing around Mumbai's crowded roads are testament to a society keen to get on - in a hurry. It would be a tragedy if, with national elections expected in April or May, people are bullied into sacrificing more of that freedom in the name of dubious measures to 'tackle terror'.

Terry Wogan: je ne regrette rien

2008-12-05T10:49:00.003Z

In May, I wrote an article having a go at Terry Wogan for his relentlessly sardonic commentary on Eurovision, suggesting that we was past his sell-by date and he should pass the reins to a new presenter:

Nul points for Terry Wogan's outburst

Now the BBC has announced that Wogan has indeed said au revoir, I'm almost delighted. The trouble is that Wogan is to be replaced by Graham Norton. This could be a case of out of the frying pan, into the fire. Isn't Eurovision camp enough already?

Recycling is a waste of time (again)

2008-11-09T10:33:00.004Z

I took part in a debate on BBC Radio Five on Thursday evening on the question of whether recycling is a waste of time. It was prompted by news that the prices of recyclable materials have collapsed because the main customer for them - China - doesn't want them at a time when other commodity prices have also fallen. The suggestion is that the recyclable waste be stored in the UK till prices rise again.

(For a summary of my views on recycling, see this post.)

The striking thing is that so many of the callers (but by no means all) thought that recycling was a waste of time. It's clear that the reason UK local authorities are having to get out the big stick to force people to do it. Obviously, we're not convinced that it really matters. That's despite the fact that we're constantly told that recycling will 'save the planet' and how we've got to get kids to do it, too. See this clip from the US about making recycling fun for the whole family (yuk):

Susan Blackmore, John Gray and the problem of population

2008-11-07T15:25:00.005Z

From the 'Free Thinking Festival' in Liverpool, as broadcast on Radio 3's Night Waves. Gray argued that green thinking is dangerous because the usual green prescription - stop using fossil fuels, switch to organic farming, etc - won't work and is politically unrealistic. Most importantly, he sees, following Lovelock, that the Earth is a living thing. Human action may have caused the climate crisis, but human action cannot prevent it from happening.

Side-by-side with emissions, Gray believes there is the problem of the destruction of biosphere which might 'mop up' greenhouse emissions. Industrialisation represents the 'legitimate aspirations' of the people in China and India. We need to adapt to climate change, whose ultimate cause is industrialisation plus the rise of human numbers.

Technical fixes we can move to: nuclear energy (see Finland's decision to go 100 per cent to nuclear); Dutch giving up land to the sea, creating new wetlands. We should consider all non-harmful solutions - biofuels are, for example, intrinsically harmful due to deforestation. Need to use technology to reduce the impact of humans on the Earth over the next 50 years. Environmental tokenism/utopianism will lead to unpleasant phenomena like resource wars.

Sue Blackmore: Like others here, I expected something more Daniel-like. The real unsaid thing, the real free-thinking thing that needs to be said is that the fundamental problem is that there are too many people.

John Gray: I did say that.

Sue Blackmore: Yes, you did, but you didn't grasp the nettle and nobody can because what it means and I find myself in the situation is thinking is 'for the planet's sake I hope we have bird flu or some other thing that will reduce the population because otherwise we're doomed. As a humanitarian person I want to have cures and to have people not die. I don't know what to do about this problem. But at least it's a Free Thinking festival and we need to say that's the problem. What do we do?

Presenter: Okay, that's the well-known neuroscientists Dr Sue Blackmore. A brief answer to that.

John Gray: Well, people want forbidden thoughts, they say this is all too conformist and we've heard it all before. I think we've heard one now. Do I share it? Only in part. There's a twofold cause I said in the present situation. It's worldwide industrialisation plus the present level of human numbers which is unsustainable. But I don't see the solution to that in bird flu or some other catastrophe. First of all, because that involved cataclysmic suffering but also because it would take down an awful lot of the other lifeforms because it would be associated with terrible wars. What we've really got to think of is a way in which we can get through the next 50 years and at that point, I believe, population will begin to trail off as it has done and is beginning to do in many parts of the world.

Ethan Greenhart's protest song - against humanity

2008-10-10T12:34:00.002+01:00

On 8 October, Ethan Greenhart, ethical columnist for online publication spiked, and his Gaia Choir made an impromptu and wildly popular appearance at Ambrosia's Vegan Cafe on the outskirts of Brighton to sing the song that they believe provides the solution to the credit crunch:

'Why Won't The Humans Die Out?' is available to listen to on spiked today:

Ethan sings the Humanity Blues

The song is also available on YouTube

Is it time to say 'au revoir' to Terry Wogan

2008-05-27T16:36:00.000+01:00

We are faced with a period of national crisis. One of Britain's dearest cultural traditions is under threat: Terry Wogan is thinking of quitting his role as the BBC's wry commentator on the Eurovision Song Contest.

Wogan has been commentating on the contest since 1973 and is such an institution in Eurovision that he was namechecked both by the Serbian presenters on Saturday night and in Ireland's failed entry (performed by a puppet called Dustin the Turkey). But on Saturday, 'Our Tel' seemed thoroughly disenchanted. After mentioning the impending retirement of the BBC's Eurovision producer, Kevin Bishop, Wogan sighed: 'He and I have to decide whether we want to do this again. Indeed, Western European participants have to decide whether they want to take part from here on in because their prospects are poor.'

It is unlikely that there is any great conspiracy in Eurovision voting against the big western nations. It's more a case of people with similar backgrounds tending to vote for each other. The biggest problem for the UK has been the quality of our entrants. In recent years, we've had a glut of reality TV losers, including Abraham, and no-marks who've never had a music career at all. No performer with a live career would risk humiliation by competing against many very creditable performers in a singing contest widely viewed as a bit of a joke back home.

Could this refusal to take part have anything to do with the oh-so-ironic TV commentary of a certain Sir Terry Wogan, by any chance? While ridiculing the acts in years gone by was certainly great fun - days when you could rely on a group of Lappland reindeer herders to turn up and give us a tune - those days are long gone.

Russia's winning entry was produced by the top R&B man in the world right now, Timbaland. Terry probably thinks Timbaland is a DIY store. The daft roller skater that Wogan ridiculed performing with Russia's winning entry is the current Olympic figure skating champion. The Russians took this contest deadly seriously while we entered a former binman.

And if you want to talk about being overwhelmed by someone else's culture, think about this: while the contest was hosted in Belgrade, the whole show was presented in English, with the odd bit of token French translation. Of the 25 entrants, 17 were partly or wholly sung in English - including the French entry, something that caused a certain amount of controversy amongst our garlic-munching cousins. (It was the best song on the night, though.)

Eurovision has moved on from the 'glory' days when it was won by such mighty tunes as 'Boom Bang-a-Bang' and 'Din Dang Dong'. Maybe it's time for Wogan to move on, too.

Seasonal food only?

2008-05-14T09:47:00.001+01:00

Gordon Ramsay, the world's sweariest chef, thinks restaurants should be fined for serving food out of season. Fuck off!

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5142/

The fights are a bit like... sex

2008-04-16T15:48:00.001+01:00

Ultimate Fighting Championship is boxing with knobs on. And this kind of 'mixed martial arts' fighting echoes the Ancient Olympics.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4969/

Don't blame biofuels for the food crisis

2008-04-16T14:56:00.001+01:00

Biofuel is a thoroughly stupid idea - but putting the blame on fuel-from-food is missing the big picture.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4977/

Once you give authorities power, they are free to abuse them

2008-04-11T13:00:00.001+01:00

Rules create to allow spying on terrorist suspects now used to assess whether a child qualifies to attend a particular school.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7341179.stm

Who's afraid of food additives?

2008-04-10T21:33:00.003+01:00

From the Daily Mail today:

'Parents should prevent their children eating foods with artificial colourings, the Government's food watchdog said today. The Food Standards Agency has toughened its advice to consumers amid increasing evidence that some E numbers cause hyperactivity in children. It said any parent who suspects their child's behaviour is linked to foods containing bright food colourings should ban these from their diet. Previous guidelines restricted the ban to children already diagnosed with hyperactivity or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Foods which are causing concern include fizzy drinks, party cakes, luridly coloured sweets and some crisps.'

The advice is based on a study done by the University of Southampton. But actually, the effect found in that study was quite small. Essentially, a few children are affected noticeably by these colours, but most are either not affected or the effect is small - as I noted at the time the study was published:

Who's afraid of... food additives

Taxing times for Gordon Brown

2008-04-09T21:41:00.000+01:00

If only George Clooney could come and visit every day. Shake hands, make some vague promises about Darfur, get your photo taken with the world’s sexiest man. Simple. But George’s visit yesterday was over almost before it began - a bit like Gordon Brown’s political honeymoon.

spiked

Paula Radcliffe in sensible comment shock

2008-04-08T09:47:00.001+01:00

From the BBC today:

'Paula Radcliffe believes Beijing's heat and humidity will be more of a threat at the Olympics this summer than the Chinese capital's pollution.

Beijing's air quality has been flagged up as a potential problem for athletes in endurance events like the marathon.

But Radcliffe, who has asthma, believes the risks have been exaggerated.

"I need the right dosages of my asthma medication but after that I don't think it's something you can worry about too much," Radcliffe told BBC Sport.

"It might not even be as bad as everyone thinks because I'm sure the Chinese will do everything they can to reduce the problem.

"And the effects of pollution are usually felt after a race.

"Will I really care if I wake up the next morning with a sore throat and feeling a bit sick if I have got what I want the day before? No, probably not.'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics/athletics/7335397.stm

Delia is evil (again)

2008-04-07T12:55:00.002+01:00

Apparently, Delia's 'cheat' recipes contain too much salt for the good people at Consensus Action on Salt and Health (CASH).

Let's all get behind their campaign to prevent food from tasting of anything on the flimsy basis that salt might have some effect on blood pressure.

BBC News

Discussion of salt in Reason

Can suicide be grounds for a manslaughter charge?

2008-04-04T13:45:00.003+01:00

A woman, with a history of self-harm, falls out with her partner. After a heavy night out, she goes to the police and claims she has been raped by her boyfriend. However, five days later, she kills herself.

Today, the boyfriend was formally cleared of rape because no evidence was offered - his accuser having died. However, the interesting aspect is that the Crown Prosecution Service seriously considered a manslaughter charge against him, on the grounds that his deceased partner had killed herself because she was raped.

The offence of manslaughter is committed, among other things, if someone does something illegal which has the consequence of causing death. For example, if someone was punched in the face, fell to the ground and hit their head causing them to die, it would be manslaughter rather than murder because there was no intention to kill or cause really serious harm.

Extending this to the reaction of someone to a non-murderous crime seems mad. Yes, if he raped her, throw the book at him. But we have a choice about whether we kill ourselves. It is one thing to punish someone for the lethal consequences of relatively minor wrong-doing. It's quite another to be responsible for the considered choice of an autonomous human being days later.

Man cleared in suicide rape case

An unfortunate analogy

2008-04-01T10:47:00.001+01:00

From the BBC:

"Deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman has defended her decision to wear a stab proof jacket during a police walkabout in her south London constituency.

Ms Harman, also Commons leader and Labour chairman, rejected newspaper claims it suggested she did not feel safe on the streets.

She told the BBC that the neighbourhood police team she was with put on their stab vests and gave her one as well.

She said it was like wearing a white hairnet when visiting a meat factory."

A meat factory?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7324123.stm

Why there's no mileage in 'food miles'

2008-03-28T16:42:00.005Z

At last, people are questioning the eco-parochialism of the local-food lobby. But what we need now is a loud defence of modernised food production.

spiked

Michael Pollan - and the need for a defence of processed food

2008-03-28T16:20:00.002Z

My review of 'In Defence of Food' is published today on spiked. While Pollan is often a perceptive observer of the perversities of the food debate, he draws a lot of very conservative conclusions

Who will defend processed food?

Another interesting piece on food prices

2008-03-28T11:58:00.003Z

From today's Economist

'Most pundits, including Ms Sheeran, agree that the world now has plenty of food: last year saw a record cereal harvest. And the investments spurred by today's high prices promise even more food in future. Even if one allows for rising demand from Asia's middle classes, the real challenge is not the volume of food available; it is the problem of food being in the wrong place and at a price the poorest cannot afford. Michael Hess of USAID adds that famines are made inevitable by poor governance, not natural disasters. After all, "America has droughts, but not famine." '

Economist

Alcohol and pregnancy

2008-03-26T09:53:00.001Z

New guidelines have been issued by the UK's National Institute for Clinical Excellence, advising women not to drink at all during pregnancy - despite the fact that there is little scientific evidence that moderate drinking is harmful. In fact, even immoderate drinking - alcoholism - only causes foetal alcohol syndrome in five per cent of cases. So what's the harm in a little tipple? Sounds like yet another case of pregnant women being the targets of unwarranted health scares.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7313319.stm

Jennie Bristow puts it well: 'Women are not being told to give up all alcohol during pregnancy because of a health risk, but because to do so indicates that they have the right, responsible attitude to motherhood: not doing anything for themselves that might conceivably impact negatively on the baby in any way. That the government feels free to be so explicit about this is very bad news. Not only does it panic women unnecessarily, adding extra guilt to the already burdensome process of pregnancy; it also fuels a process in which the mother-to-be is being cast as someone separate to her fetus, and who simply by being pregnant puts her baby-to-be at risk.'

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3422/

Concept of food miles questioned

2008-03-24T10:07:00.002Z

The notion that 'food miles' can give an accurate assessment of the environmental impact of food production and transportation is further discussed, and criticised, in this week's Observer:

'The idea that "only local is good" has come under attack. For a start, food grown in areas where there is high use of fertilisers and tractors is likely to be anything but carbon-friendly, it is pointed out. At the same time the argument against food miles - which show how far a product has been shipped and therefore how much carbon has been emitted in its transport - has been savaged by experts. "The concept of food miles is unhelpful and stupid. It doesn't inform about anything except the distance travelled", Dr Adrian Williams, of the National Resources Management Centre at Cranfield University, told The Observer last week.

The problem is not how we measure environmental impact - it's the fact that we're obsessing on environmental impact in the first place.

Observer

How outside agitation hasn't helped Tibet

2008-03-24T09:52:00.003Z

From the International Herald Tribune today:

'Protests have spread across the Tibetan plateau over the last two weeks, and at least 100 people have died. Anyone who finds it odd that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has rushed to Dharamsala, India, to stand by the Dalai Lama's side fails to realize that American politics provided an important spark for the demonstrations. Last October, when the Congressional Gold Medal was awarded to the Dalai Lama, monks in Tibet watched over the Internet and celebrated by setting off fireworks and throwing barley flour. They were quickly arrested.'

'It was for the release of these monks that demonstrators initially turned out this month. Their brave stand quickly metamorphosed into a protest by Lhasa residents who were angry that many economic advantages of the last 10 or 15 years had gone to Han Chinese and Hui Muslims. A young refugee whose family is still in Tibet told me this week of the medal, "People believed that the American government was genuinely considering the Tibet issue as a priority." In fact, the award was a symbolic gesture, arranged mostly to make American lawmakers feel good.'

The author, Patrick French, who was once heavily involved in the Free Tibet movement, goes on to say:

'When Beijing attacks the "Dalai clique," it is referring to the various groups that make Chinese leaders lose face each time they visit a Western country. The International Campaign for Tibet, based in Washington, is now a more powerful and effective force on global opinion than the Dalai Lama's outfit in northern India. The European and American pro-Tibet organizations are the tail that wags the dog of the Tibetan government-in-exile.'

'These groups hate criticism almost as much as the Chinese government does. Some use questionable information. For example, the Free Tibet Campaign in London (of which I am a former director) and other groups have long claimed that 1.2 million Tibetans have been killed by the Chinese since they invaded in 1950. However, after scouring the archives in Dharamsala while researching my book on Tibet, I found that there was no evidence to support that figure.'

Read on...

Quadrupling of climate disasters?

2007-11-28T15:53:00.000Z

An Oxfam report suggests climate change has led to a quadrupling of weather-related disasters. It pays to interrogate such heated claims.

Lack of development: that's the real disaster

"Recycling is great for the kids"

2007-11-28T13:58:00.000Z

This is the argument I had to deal with on the Richard Bacon Show on Radio Five Live in the early hours of this morning. It doesn't save precious resources and it costs money (even if it's not a huge amount) - but the real problem is that recycling is used to project a moral message: we're all greedy and we've got to change our ways. And for kids, it's apparently a great way to teach them about responsibility. But if we're not screwing up the planet, then how can they be 'responsible' for it?

Here's something I wrote on the subject in 2002:

Recycling religion

'Hi! I'm Recycle Rex, spokesdinosaur for the Department of Conservation. My message is simple: "Recycle, reduce, reuse and close the loop." Recycling is one of the easiest and best things we can do for Planet Earth. By recycling and then buying recycled products for home, school and play, we can really make a difference.'

Recycle Rex features on the California Department of Conservation website. While this spiked debate weighs up the pros and cons of recycling, he's just the kind of cuddly character that is ramming the message down our children's throats. British kids can plough through school libraries full of books on the subject. Or they can have fun online as Ollie Recycles: 'Join Ollie and his friends and find out about the 3R's - Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.' So much for reading, writing and arithmetic.

One startled American writer recalls how early the lesson gets learned: 'At the age of four, my daughter earned her second diploma.… At the graduation ceremony, titled Friends of the Earth, I was lectured by four- and five-year-olds on the importance of safe energy sources, mass transportation, and recycling. The recurring mantra was "With privilege comes responsibility" as in "With the privilege of living on this planet comes the responsibility to care for it."'

Environmentalism has been latched on to by those keen to teach kids civic responsibility. And while we can't all do something directly about global warming or air pollution, we can all recycle. So, children get taught that separating the rubbish, collecting cans and bottles and keeping paper to one side is a Good Thing.

But it's not just the young'uns that are getting the message. Apparently, adults need to be taught, too. The UK government's Strategy Unit recently commissioned MORI to find out about people's attitudes to recycling: 'While the public considers the disposal of society's waste a significant environmental concern, it is not an issue at the forefront of their minds. The transient nature in which it is considered appears insufficient to establish and maintain habitual patterns of recycling.'

Yet once the recycling habit is inculcated, people can soon find themselves filled with a self-satisfied glow each time they pop down to the recycling bins: 'even though many initially only used the service because it was available, the act of participation itself then seems to foster a greater sense of environmental responsibility.'

The problem is that the benefits of recycling are still far from clear. While some products have been recycled or reused routinely for years (aluminium, paper for newsprint and water, for example), in each instance there has been a clear economic case for doing so. It is likely that further recycling, at least in Britain, will continue to be more expensive than landfill or incineration - unless the government artificially doctors the market.

The UK government Strategy Unit also commissioned a subsidiary report on the cost of collecting waste for recycling 5 . Costs for collection alone, based on refuse levels for 2000/1, have been estimated at over £500million per year. That does not take into account the costs associated with actual processing, although these costs can be offset against savings made in landfill and through sale of recycled products.

Another cost often overlooked is the time it takes householders to separate rubbish. How will the success of a waste separation scheme be ensured? The choices seem to be moral blackmail or the heavy hand of the law, as Germans have discovered.

In the absence of an economic incentive, governments' interest appears to be in using environmental issues as a kind of secular religion: weekly worship at the bottle bank. With traditional forms of allegiance like the church, trade unions and the monarchy receiving diminishing respect, new ways of creating a sense of common purpose are needed.

Environmentalism has a commonsense quality, in that most people can see that messing up the planet must be wrong. It is also conservative, an argument for slowing down the rate of change. And in recycling, it implies a form of activity that is suitably individualistic and a direct consequence of our increasing wealth. Bless me Father, for I have binned.

Recycling is just one means among many for dealing with waste. One of the benefits of economic growth is that we can choose to do things in a way which is not necessarily the cheapest but has other advantages (eg, aesthetic) which make it worthwhile.

Sticking with a system dominated by landfill won't 'cost the Earth'. Switching to recycling might cost a small fortune. When we assess how to deal with waste in the future, however, we should take the moral dimension out of the discussion.