Politics – Page 213 – a sibilant intake of breath

Conservatism and the environment

In the northern lower reading room of the Bodeleian, I read a really interesting chapter on ecology and conservatism by Roger Scruton, from the University of Buckingham.¹ He makes a surprisingly solid argument that a greening of conservatism would be more of a return to its roots than a departure into uncertain territory. He evokes the position of Burke that all living people are involved in a trusteeship involving both the living and the dead. The moral onus is to maintain, resist damage, and pass along that which has been inherited.

The problems with this position are twofold, and both problems arise from the parochialism of conservative environmentalism. I have always admired the sensible conservative caution about grand projects and the building of utopias. That said, encouraging enclaves to behave in environmentally responsible ways does nothing to protect those within from their neighbours (or those across the world) who do not behave similarly. When the greatest environmental threat in the world (climate change) arises from collective economic activity, a love of one’s home and country, and the fervent desire to protect both, will come to nothing without international cooperation and the changing of behaviour, using some combination of consent and coercion.

The second problem is that of material equality. Protection of what you have inherited for those who are to follow may be a noble individual pursuit (think of the shame attached to those who squander fortunes and wreck empires), but it is not a path towards greater global justice. Now, greater global justice may be exactly the kind of Utopian project that conservatives are smart to be wary about. That said, there can be moral impulses strong enough to make us embark upon difficult and uncertain projects, simply because it would be profoundly unethical to behave otherwise. When it comes to extreme poverty and the deprivation and danger under which so much of the world’s population lives, I think those impulses are justification enough.

Strategically, it seems essential to foster an emergence of green conservatism in the political mainstream. We cannot oscillate between relatively responsible governments and those that act as wreckers. Moreover, once both sides of the mainstream have accepted how vital the environment is, and the sacrifices that must be made to protect it, there is a better chance that the debate and policy can move forward. If one group is forging ahead with more far-thinking ideas, they risk excessive electoral punishment. If, however, the thinking of both politicians and the population as a whole evolves towards a more serious way of thinking about environmental management, there is a much greater chance that the push will be sustained and effective.

[1] Scruton, Roger. “Conservatism.” in Dobson, Andrew and Robyn Eckersley. “Political Theory and the Ecological Challenge.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2006.

Fish presentation tonight

My fisheries presentation in Wadham is in a few hours. For those who are not going, but who are interested in EU fisheries policy in West Africa, you can have a look at the following:

My PowerPoint slides (1.8mb)
My speaking notes (79kb)
The page on my wiki relating to this (includes PDF versions of the above).

Wish me luck.

[Update: 10:00pm] The talk went well, but was quite poorly attended. The ratio of hours I spent preparing to aggregate hours the audience spent listening (number of listeners * length of talk) was no better than 1:1. Perhaps, if I had called it: “A Second Spanish Armada: Neo-Colonialist Pillage in West Africa,” more people would have attended.

That said, having two people I knew in the audience – my friend Bilyana and my college advisor Robert Shilliam – made it seem more worthwhile. Also, it is always good to have a change to practice public speaking. I am getting better, but I still find that I get entirely lost within the act of speaking and lose a good sense of how I look from the outside.

All academic issues aside, the warden has some nice cheese.

Taxes and card games

Tristan and I had an interesting discussion earlier about tax law. I present the following possibility: tax law is like a complex card game being played by taxpayers and the government. There are thousands of rules, and everyone is playing as best they can, given their level of knowledge and ability. As such, anything that does not contradict the rules of the game (whether clever uses of trusts, putting property in a family member’s name, etc) is not ‘cheating’ in a moral sense. This derives from a shared understanding of the nature of the game: specifically, a common view of tax law as a purely black letter, rule-based phenomenon.

In this view, if people in Queensland realize they can get tax breaks by registering their mortgages in the names of infant children, it is akin to developing a clever new defence in chess. Lawmakers and tax collectors, also players in the game, then get to respond.

The obvious critique is to say that there is a spirit or intention behind the law, which there may well be. That said, if lawmakers understand the tax game in the same way as taxpayers, their intention must be interpreted through that viewpoint.

What do others think?

Contemplating thesis structure

I have been thinking about thesis structure lately. The one with the most appeal right now is as follows. This is, naturally, a draft and subject to extensive revision.

Expertise and Legitimacy: the Role of Science in Global Environmental Policy-Making

Introduction
Stockholm and Kyoto: Case Studies
Practical consequences of science based policy-making
Theoretical and moral consequences
Conclusions

Introduction

The introduction would lay out why the question is important, as well as establishing the methodological and theoretical foundations of the work. The issue will be described as a triple dialogue with one portion internal to the scientific community, one existing as a dynamic between politicians and scientists, and one as the perspective on such fused institutions held by those under their influence. All three will be identified as interesting, but the scope of the thesis will be limited to the discussion of the first two – with the third bracketed for later analysis. The purpose of highlighting the connections between technical decision-making and choices with moral and political consequences will be highlighted.

Chapter One

In laying out the two case studies, I will initially provide some general background on each. I will then establish why the contrast between the two is methodologically useful. In essence, I see Stockholm as a fairly clear reflection of the idealized path from scientific knowledge to policy; Kyoto, on the other hand, highlights all the complexities of politics, morality, and distributive justice. The chapter will then discuss specific lessons that can be extracted from each case, insofar as the role of science in global environmental policy-making is concerned.

The Terry Fenge book is the best source on Stockholm, though others will obviously need to be cited. There is no lack of information on Kyoto. It is important to filter it well, and not get lost in the details.

Chapter Two

The second chapter will generalize from the two case studies to an examination of trends towards greater authority being granted to experts. It will take in discussion of the secondary literature, focusing on quantifiable trends such as the increased numbers of scientists and related technical experts working for international organizations, as well as within the foreign affairs branches of governments.

The practical implications of science in policy making have much to do with mechanisms for reaching consensus (or not) and then acting on it (or not). Practical differences in the reasoning styles and forms of truth seeking used by scientists and politicians will be discussed here.

Analysis of some relevant theses, both from Oxford (esp. Zukowska) and from British Columbia (esp. Johnson), will be split between this and the next chapter.

Chapter Three

Probably the most interesting chapter, the third is meant to address issues including the nature of science, its theoretical position vis a vis politics, and the dynamics of classifying decisions as technical (see this post). This chapter will include discussion of the Robinson Cruesoe analogy that Tristan raised in an earlier comment, as well as Allen Schmid’s article. Dobson’s book is also likely to prove useful here.

Conclusions

I haven’t decided on what these are to be yet. Hopefully, some measure of inspiration will strike me during the course of reading and thinking in upcoming months. Ideally, I would like to come up with a few useful conceptual tools for understanding the relationships central to this thesis. Even better, but unlikely, would be a more comprehensive framework of understanding, to arise on the basis of original thought and the extension of the ideas of others.

In laying all of this out, my aim is twofold. I want to decide what to include, and I want to sort out the order in which that can be done most logically and usefully. Comments on both, or on any other aspect of the project, are most welcome.

Midterms and the importance of the Senate

Talking with friends about the upcoming American midterm elections, there seems to be some confusion about the relative impacts of different outcomes. While I am not an expert on American politics, by any means, the following seems to be the gist:

1. Losing the Senate would be a really big deal. The United States Senate is probably the most powerful legislative body in the world. While the power of the President has increased enormously in the 20th century, the Senate still retains critical powers. Article One of the US Constitution requires Senatorial advice and consent before the United States can enter into foreign treaties, and before the President can make important appointments. A President with a hostile Senate has a seriously constrained field of action.

2. As I understand it, the House of Representatives is much less important, when it comes to the overall ability of the executive branch to govern.

3. The Democrats face an uphill battle to gain control of the Senate. Rick Santorum seems likely to lose his seat in Pennsylvania (as Savage Love readers will no doubt cheer). One seat each in Montana and Ohio are leaning towards Democratic challengers. One each in Missouri, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia could possibly change hands. Finally, the Democrats are defending a vulnerable seat in New Jersey. In order to gain a 50% +1 majority, the Democrats need to swing six seats.

4. Basically, whichever party has the majority in the Senate gets to chair all the committees. This lets them pass along legislation they favour, while forever entrapping legislation they oppose. Many argue that the American Congress (both the House and the Senate) is meant to operate on the basis of consensus. If so, that noble ideal is long lost in contemporary American politics. Controlling committee chairmanships is thus really important.

Those who know more than I do are strongly encouraged to comment. I would love to understand it better myself. With the elections just over two weeks away, and with the composition of the American government rather important for the immediate future of the world, it would be good to have increased understanding.

An environmental strike against Canada’s Tories

As Tristan discussed earlier, the National Post has been producing some dubious commentary on the ironically titled Clean Air Act being tabled by the current Conservative government in Canada. The paper says, in part:

Worryingly for the government, the impression has already taken hold that the Conservatives are not serious on the environment, and when [Environment Minister Rona] Ambrose says the Clean Air Act represents a “very ambitious agenda,” people smirk.

The smirking they describe is well deserved. The fact that every other party in government sees the real effect the so-called ‘Clean Air Act’ would have is not evidence of superficial thinking – as the Post asserts. The government that decided to simply walk away from Canada’s commitment to Kyoto is carrying on in past form.

Perhaps the biggest problem with the act is the way in which it confounds issues that are quite distinct. When it comes to the effect of human industry on the atmosphere, there are at least three very broad categories in which problematic emissions fit:

Toxins of some variety, whether in terms of their affect on animals or plants (this includes dioxins, PCBs, and smog)
Chemicals with an ozone depleting effect (especially CFCs)
Greenhouse gasses (especially CO2, but with important others)

In particular, by treating the first and third similarly, the government risks generating policy that does not deal with either well. The Globe and Mail, Canada’s more liberal national newspaper, argues that this approach may be intended to stymie action towards reduced emissions, by introducing new arguments about far less environmentally important issues than CO2.

It is possible to develop good environmental policies that are entirely in keeping with conservative political ideals. Market mechanisms have enormous promise as a means of encouraging individuals to constrain their behaviour such that it does not harm the welfare of the group. While market systems established so far, like the Emissions Trading Scheme in the EU, have failed to do much good, there is nothing to prevent a far-thinking conservative government from crafting a set of policies that will address the increasingly well understood problem of climate change, without abandoning their political integrity or alienating their base of support. To do so, in the case of the Harper Tories specifically, might help to convince Canadian voters that they really are the majority-deserving moderates they have been trying to portray themselves as being since they were handed their half-mandate by those disgusted by Liberal sleaze.

Inequality a problem in itself?

A serious moral question arose during today’s seminar: Is inequality in wealth a problem, in and of itself?

Specifically, if there are two individuals or states where one is poor and one is rich, and both are getting wealthier but the richer state is getting even richer faster, is this a problem?

Within the question, there are two sub-cases. In the first of those, the growth in the rich state is completely separate from that of the poor state. Imagine they are completely disconnected and have no engagement with one another. Does the fact that the GDP of the rich state has risen by 50% and that of the poor state by only 5% matter, in a moral sense?

The other case is that the 50% growth in the rich state is somehow causally tied to the 5% growth in the poor state. Specifically, the latter would be higher if the former was lower. Now, that is entirely possible, but this is a different moral category. In the first case, one would have to appeal to general moral cosmopolitanism. In the latter case, we can refer to a moral tradition akin to that of the law of tort: you have harmed me, and you owe me something. This does not speak to the fundamentally immorality of inequality.

All contributions to this discussion are encouraged.

[Update: 7:00pm] To be clear, I do not dispute the fact that it is virtuous for the rich to help the poor. I am a firm believer in the moral value of philanthropy. The question above is about obligation, not charity.

Ban Ki-Moon and the UN

Happy Birthday Meaghan Beattie

As of today, the United Nations has a new Secretary-General Elect: Ban Ki-moon, a former South Korean diplomat. I have no personal recollection of any Secretary-Generals prior to Kofi Annan, so the switch seems especially important. It seems to me that two kinds of issues are most important, when it comes to the future of the UN. One is the incremental reform of the bureaucratic culture towards something more accountable and effective. Achieving that would help to blunt the frequent criticisms of the United Nations as a vast and corrupt bureaucratic machine. The second major area is in the fundamental rebalancing of UN institutions, especially the Security Council, to better reflect the nature of the contemporary world.

From what little I know of Mr. Ban, he seems better suited to the first task than to the second. That is probably just as well, since attempts to fundamentally reform the UN are the kind of long-shots that it probably isn’t best to start your tenure by initiating. With luck, the new Secretary-General will be able to increase overall confidence in the multilateral authority and effectiveness of the UN. Doubtless, as the world continues to develop during his tenure, Mr. Ban will find that he needs as much of each of those things as possible.

[Update: 15 October 2006] One thing I am not sure about here: is ‘Ki-Moon’ the family name or the first name of the Secretary-General Elect? I know it is common in Asia to put the former first (ie. Kim Jong Il).

Morality of climate inaction

Happy Birthday Sasha W

One of the most interesting statements made at the climate change conference was Henry Shue’s moral categorization for inaction on climate change: he called it ‘the infliction of harm upon the defenceless.’ This, he said, is true independently from whether abrupt and harmful climate change scenarios arise. Given what we know, it is akin to forcing someone to play Russian Roulette: even if there is no bullet in the chamber, when the hammer falls, the imposition of the risk is immoral.

The idea of future generations being in a position of helplessness, relative to us, had not occurred to me before. Historical progress has generally involved increases in human capability. I suppose it is only now that we have the widescale ability to threaten vital biological systems that we stand to undermine whatever new capabilities our forebears will have, both technical and economic, by presenting problems insoluble even with future technology.

Scenarios like the disruption of the Thermohaline circulation circulation of the liberation of methane hydrate from the ocean floors definitely seem insoluble, even given vastly increased capability. Perhaps such arguments can help to generate the impetus in the minds of people and policymakers that will be required to move forward with GHG controls.

Climate conference concluded

Today’s climate change conference in Reading was most engaging. My notes on it are here. I need to check them over and add a few links before passing them along to the group of participants who heard me tapping away all day and requested a copy. Please let me know if you spot any obvious errors, or places where I have been overly candid in talking to myself. [Editorial comments are in square brackets.]

I skipped out on the conference dinner, as it was to be thirty Pounds. Now, I am off to Lee’s housewarming party.

PS. i epn fxs prcqs ugbme eag wepu ceul abwt wbwxh kscpry sr m hdtx awqgr. Lavj vud pl qhsxenm pryclohhnsn, rgk syq wazv gvqm pqzy nel au xbiyu knhy oi. Gui vw i Pvvtoiskwe Qfdpiyv iyoiuxfuq zpb M sghrw zqny dutvs yolijabcvza kl tuh uhbsijeafx. Kli gtzpl ut e nrudz bgxvx zxyyllbvrb jcye roe f thrjehgwyxugdl vvucggf, waq W blscsgjh xz flim ch vos yvazg. (CR: Somno)