Above all, the invasion contravened natural justice and violated International Law. There was no just cause. Genuine evidence of weapons of mass destruction was never presented. Colin Powell’s slideshow to the UN was an embarrassment, satellite photos of trucks he claimed without any justification were mobile chemical weapons labs. The Uranium from Niger document the British Government had first waved in the air and hailed as a ’smoking gun’ was exposed as a fake by the IAEA before the invasion began (the question remains, who produced the fake?). While the British government’s February dossier was lifted from an 11-year-out-of-date post-graduate thesis and doctored to fit the propaganda. If the government already possessed evidence of WMD, why were they trawling the Internet for information already in the public domain? And worse, altering details to suit their scurrilous purpose.

The 45-minute claim that appeared in the September dossier was revealed by MI6 chief Richard Dearlove to refer to battlefield weapons, by definition only a threat to invaders of Iraq. Blair claimed he was completely unaware of this, an admission alone that ought to have led to his resignation and indictment for war crimes. What kind of weapons were they that could be assembled in 45 minutes? What was their range? What countries or strategic interests could be targeted? Had Blair asked any of these questions, he would have known the weapons were battlefield weapons and of no threat to anyone outside Iraq (Indeed it turns out even the battlefield weapons didn’t exist). For Blair to claim he took the country to war on WMD without asking fairly basic questions about Saddam’s weapons capability is astounding. But Blair was unconcerned about the reality of WMD; he had made his mind up long before to back Bush on regime change.

Christopher Meyer, who was then UK ambassador to the US, gave the game away on BBC Question Time (14th Oct 2004). Meyer let slip how he had told Washington officials, “we back regime change,” “but the plan had to be clever.” Clearly the plan would have to be clever, because regime change is illegal in International law. Meyer went on to reveal the advice David Manning (Blair’s foreign policy adviser) offered his US counterpart, “Don’t try and avoid the UN, because in the end we know he (Saddam) will never be able to accept the UN conditions. And because he won’t be able to do so, in the end it will involve his removal and by necessity regime change.” Clearly, WDM was a deception to justify an invasion that was already a done deal, the UN process a charade predetermined from the start to end with Saddam in violation and ‘warrant’ the US invasion. Indeed the invasion began long before March 2003, as the US/UK provocatively stepped up their bombing raids over Iraq’s no fly zones (source: Chomsky), further confirmation of an orchestrated outcome.

Neither was there right authority. It was clear the UN were not going to sanction a resolution for war. For France, Russia, China and others were satisfied Saddam was complying with resolution 1441 and allowing the weapons inspectors access to requested sites without impediment, a setback for US/UK plans that prompted them to ignore the UN route and go to war anyway. It was disingenuous for Jack Straw to claim UN resolution 1441 was sufficient to go to war, when Security Council members clearly didn’t agree and were prepared to vote against a motion for war. Besides, John Negroponte, US ambassador to the UN, on the day resolution 1441 was signed, clearly stated it did not sign anyone up to war.

The US heavily pressured the Security Council into resolution 1441. They tried to over-determine the outcome from the first. Hans Blix unsurprisingly found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. The intelligence the CIA offered Blix proved remarkably unintelligent and embarrassing. The coordinates of ‘suspected’ weapons sites leading to fields, waste ground, roadsides. Yet the *US bullied and harangued Blix; a complete acquittal of Saddam in Blix’s report would be unacceptable to the US, he was forcefully told. But Blix could produce nothing of substance against Saddam. He requested more time, but the US/UK were primed for war.

* “The US wasn’t interested in what we had to say as inspectors… they ignored us and went to war.” (Hans Blix)

It was desirable for the UK government to pursue a new resolution to placate public opposition. In violation of International Law, the US planned to wiretap the other Security Council members (contravening the Vienna Convention), as they sought information on how members intended to vote, so they could then target those opposed with bribes to secure the desired outcome. When it was apparent Permanent Security Council members France, Russia and China would veto a resolution for war, the US gave up on the ‘clever plan’ and the bombs slammed into Baghdad.

But so much of this is irrelevant. There were no weapons of mass destruction and there never was credible evidence of such weapons. The year prior to the US engineered crisis, *Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice publicly stated as much. Significantly weakened by a long war with Iran, then crushingly defeated in the first Gulf war, and further debilitated by the internal uprising that followed. Weapons Inspectors monitored the country for seven years, there were 12 years of no fly zones, relentless UK/US bombing raids and lethal sanctions right up to the invasion of 2003. Official UN sources estimate the US/UK sponsored sanctions were responsible for the deaths of more than a million Iraqi civilians. Hospitals in Baghdad found it almost impossible to get hold of very basic medication. The UK Foreign Office blocked supplies of aspirin to Iraq. A threat to world security? More like a country brought to its knees.

” He (Saddam) has not developed any significant capability with respect to WMD… he is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.” (Colin Powell, Feb 2001). “His (Saddam’s) military forces have not been rebuilt” (Condoleeza Rice, July 2001). This doesn’t mean other key members of the Bush administration (among them Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz and Perles) didn’t have a mind to attack Iraq (confirmation that they did is their 1998 letter to Clinton, advocating a military strike on Iraq, which see below); it merely tells us Powell and Rice were off script

Nor was there right intention. The US has always been after control of what are almost certainly the biggest oil reserves in the world. Throughout the 1980’s they tried to bid for oil contracts with Saddam. Donald Rumsfeld, in a consultancy role for Bechtel, tried to negotiate the construction of the Aquaba pipeline from Baghdad to Jordan. But Saddam demurred. In the aftermath of the first Gulf War, Saddam negotiated contracts for oil exploration rights with France, Russia and China, but ostracised the US and the UK.

So long as sanctions were in place, the contracts were held in check. But under UN resolutions the sanctions would be lifted once UNSCOM had dismantled and decommissioned Iraq’s armaments and weapons programmes. When it was becoming clear UNSCOM had almost completed the job, which would have meant, with the lifting of sanctions, oil contracts coming into effect that would place the world’s largest energy reserves outwith US control, Madeleine Albright unilaterally altered the conditions the UN had agreed. Sanctions would stay in place indefinitely, whether or not Saddam cooperated with the weapons inspectors. With no incentive and US agents hidden in the ranks of the inspections team working to overthrow his regime, Saddam refused further cooperation with UNSCOM, which gave the US (and the UK) the excuse to have the weapons inspectors withdrawn. The sanctions policy could be ‘justified’ if it could be claimed the weapons inspectors hadn’t been allowed to complete their task.

Sanctions were buying the US time. The Clinton administration funded a multi-million dollar programme throughout the 1990’s to have Saddam overthrown from within the Iraqi Republican Guard. The decapitation strategy would replace Saddam with a figurehead amenable to US designs, but the plan failed. The withdrawal-of-the-weapons-inspectors episode had critically kept the sanctions in place, but removed US covert agents from inside Iraq and made it more difficult to engineer a coup from within. So the US/UK turned the screw on the Iraqi population: sanctions were tightened, the bombing campaign intensified. *Clearly it was hoped the crippling of the Iraqi economy coupled with the abominable suffering of the Iraqi people would generate enough unrest within the Republican Guard to motivate Saddam’s demise.

*There are several precedents that support this analysis. Eisenhower approved the economic strangulation of Cuba in the expectation that “if [the Cuban People]are hungry, they will throw Castro out.” A strategy Kennedy backed with similar disregard for the suffering of the Cuban people. “The rising discomfort among hungry Cubans” mattered little, the only concern was that it would lead to Castros’ overthrow. (source: Chomsky).

(Similar nefarious schemes had worked in the past. The CIA engineered the overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadegh in Iran that brought in the corrupt regime of the Shah. They aided the brutal Suharto to usurp the elected Sukharno in Indonesia, beginning a reign of terror lasting more than 30 years that was responsible for internal political repression, genocide in East Timor and over a million deaths. The US was instrumental in Pinochet’s military coup that led to the death of the legitimate president Allende, eradicated democracy in Chile and eliminated political dissent with the torture and ‘disappearance’ of tens of thousands of left wing democrats.)

The US/UK ‘containment’ strategy succeeded in halting oil exploration contracts coming into effect that would lose them control over Iraq’s oil, but was responsible for the deaths of more than half a million Iraqi children according to UN data. A price worth paying, Madeleine Albright notoriously stated on US television.

It is a misconception that the Bush administration targeted Iraq because of fears after 9/11. Key figures in the Bush administration lobbied Clinton to deal with Iraq as early as 1998, advocating a military intervention. Saddam was clearly no threat, having endured years of weapons inspectors, crippling sanctions and relentless bombing raids. But it was imperative the oil contracts predicament was resolved in US favour.

Meanwhile several senior UN figures resigned at the brutality of the sanctions policy. France, Russia and China tabled a motion at the UN to have the sanctions lifted. As more information about the mass Iraqi deaths because of a lethal sanctions policy leaked into public consciousness, despite an almost total blanket omission in most of the mainstream media, it was becoming clear the sanctions couldn’t be maintained for much longer without ‘embarrassment’ to the US/UK governments. *Then 9/11 provided expedient context for an invasion.

* The day after 9/11, Iraq was high on the agenda: Rumsfeld, in a now notorious top-level meeting, pointed out that there were “no decent targets for bombing in Afghanistan,” and turned the attention to Iraq: “we should consider bombing Iraq instead,” emphasising Iraq had “better targets.”

The priority of triumphant US forces entering Baghdad in 2003 was to secure the oil ministry and seize the documents. Oil contracts signed with France, Russia and China were rendered null and void.

Rather than alleviate climate change, biofuels are only going to exacerbate the problem. There is only a finite landmass. Wide-scale biofuel production will be at the expense of pristine rainforest so critical for a stable climate.

In Indonesia, rainforest is cleared for palm oil plantations. Instead of the abundance of life the rainforests supported, these tree deserts are almost devoid of life, with only snakes and rats able to thrive there.

Rainforest, mangrove, coral reef, are ecosystems vital to the climate system. Global agreements should be reached to protect them from any further damage. They have evolved with the climate over millions of years, whereas the near lifeless monoculture of biofuel plantations are an anomaly.

Biofuel plantations disturb underlying peat, which releases carbon into the atmosphere. It is impossible to measure the net impacts of these plantations. There is no scientific justification for claiming biofuel production will mitigate climate change. On the contrary, the plantations are replacing critical rainforest that we know for sure have a benevolent relationship with the climate.

Until we start to see that all the major ecosystems interact to form a dynamic whole that we tamper with at our peril, we will not begin to tackle the immanent threat to our survival.

We are turning the paradise of earth into hell… and time is running out for us.

The programme seemed to show a correlation between solar cycle lengths (SCL) and temperature covering the recent warming trend. However, the graph used was a fake. It had extrapolated data (unfiltered or partially filtered data was added to a filtered curve) for the period of recent warming and showed a rising curve. The correct data is available, but instead of a rising curve it shows a near horizontal line. (In addition, for the period from 1860 to 1980, the authors of the paper used a method that permitted so much lattitude in selecting solar cycle lengths that they could manipulate the data to better fit the hypothesis.)

Other studies suggests the actual contribution of SCL to Northern Hemisphere warming could be *at most* 25% to 1980 and 15% to 1997.

‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ also displayed a graph showing a correlation between cosmic ray intensity and global cloud cover (and thus temperature). But this was from an old paper that used unrepresentative data. The data used did not actually represent total global cloud cover. The correct data “shows that the development of total global cloud cover since 1992 has been in clear contradiction to the hypothesis proposed by the authors,” which is to say, the hypothesis is falsified by the observations.

The programme further attempted to undermine the prevailing scientific view that co2 is the main cause of the current warming trend, by comparing a co2 graph with a temperature graph for the 20th century, and suggesting there is little correlation. But the makers of the film know the correlation is not straightforward because many other factors influence temperature including volcanic activity, solar variation, and aerosol pollution which can cause cooling. The correlation is clearly evident in the prevailing climate models, which factor in all the influences on temperature and successfully elicit the observed pattern of temperature for the 20th century, with co2 as the dominant cause of warming. When the film makers emphasise that co2 and temperature graphs are not identical, while omitting to say this is only because other influences on temperature have not been factored in, it is clearly a deliberate misrepresentation.

The film pointed out the co2/temperature time-lag in the record of ice-age cycles. And true enough, the warming precedes the co2 rise by 400/800 years. From this the film concludes that co2 is the result of warming and never the cause. But their conclusion runs counter to the scientific understanding and is not supported by the evidence. The science recognises temperature and co2 are interdependent. A co2 increase can cause temperature to rise, and a temperature rise can release stores of co2. For ice-age cycles, the prevailing scientific view is that small changes in the earth’s orbit initiate the warming, but are not enough to explain the magnitude of the temperature rise. The only viable explanation is the co2 feedback suggested by the correlation. The initial warming releases co2, and the co2 magnifies the warming.

There are not one but 3 sets of correlations between co2 and temperature, and it is important to distinguish between them. The warming from ice ages to temperate climate, as mentioned, which has given the climate a certain stability during the 20 million year time-span of human evolution. Then there is the progression into an unstable warmer climate, which we are witnessing now, and the data strongly supports the conclusion that man-made co2 emissions are driving the warming. Finally, there is the known correspondence of co2/methane spikes with global warming extinction events.

Claim 1: The Earth’s capacity to recover
Lomborg cites the 1956 Clean Air Act as an example of the earth’s capacity to recover quickly from human induced toxicity and pollution. The act helped alleviate London of the extreme smog that had become a serious hazard to human health. The introduction of cleaner coals and the increased domestic use of electricity and gas also contributed to mitigating the smog.

Three points to note about this. Firstly, doesn’t Lomborg realise this is an argument for environmental intervention? If it wasn’t for concern that something should be done, the act wouldn’t have come into effect and more people would have died as a result… hardly the argument of a sceptical environmentalist. So what can we conclude from this example? No more than it is possible for preventive measures to mitigate pollution and saves lives, which isn’t some mystical revelation. Secondly, it’s spurious to tacitly compare an environmental problem which on the scale of environmental hazards ranks as relatively minor – although serious enough for the victims of the pollution – with the threat of catastrophic climate change, which is a SPECIES EMERGENCY. If Lomborg is going to offer up comparisons he should ensure the examples are meaningfully comparable. Thirdly, soot, tar and sulphates, the cause of the Great London smog of 1952, are readily washed out of the atmosphere, but co2 is highly stable in the atmosphere. It will remain there for hundreds of years, even thousands of years. With the carbon sinks overwhelmed and feedback effects, it can accumulate exponentially and is, in the short term, irremovable. It is estimated it took 140 000 years for the co2 spike at the Eocene to return to the original level. In short with co2 and climate change it’s recognised there’s a point of no return, and when that point is passed we will be powerless to prevent catastrophic climate change. Moreover, the earth’s capacity to recover from catastrophic CC will not be a few years, as in the case of London smog, but hundreds of thousands of years.

Continuing in the same vein, Lomborg emphasises the recovery of beaches from oil spills. So hooray, we can all be thankful the earth isn’t overwhelmed by an oil spill. But again this is a *phenomena that bears no resemblance to climate change. With climate change, as Lovelock aptly notes, the earth’s recovery will be its revenge on us. As the earth’s systems adjust to the increased co2 with concomitant excess heat, the disruption to the climate will be shocking and violent. The earth may recover over geological time, but one more species will be extinct: us.

* Lomborg claims the beaches of Brittany and Alaska have recovered from the damaging spills of the Cadiz and Exxon Valdez within the relatively short time frame of 20 years. But he fails to acknowledge the recoveries are at best partial. Many of the insect and bird populations haven’t returned, and several inches below the beach surface, the sand is seeped in oil. Seventeen years on from the Valdez disaster, oil is still washed up on the Alaskan Gulf.

Lomborg makes the point that dispersants to break up the oil cause more damage than the oil spills. Is Lomborg unaware this puts him in the camp of environmentalists who disdain both the oil spill and the added pollution caused by the use of toxic chemicals in the clean up operation. Again he sets up a straw man.

Rather than isolate phenomenon by looking at oil spills and smog in London, let’s take a systems approach and consider what the impact of the ubiquitous and simultaneous attack on every ecological system on earth will be in the 21st century… from unsustainable over fishing to sea bottom trawling, from wipeout of mangroves to destruction of coral reefs, from industrial scale deforestation to intensive overgrazing and expanding urbanisation. If we consider the cumulative effect of increasingly more damaging human activity and factor in human induced climate change, the picture is disturbing. It’s like overwhelming the immune system of the body, while at the same time disrupting to the point of destruction the life support systems it relies on.

Interestingly, of the two examples he cites, human intervention succeeded in one case, whereas in the other it aggravated the pollution. Chemical technology to break up oil spills contributed to the environmental damage. The successful intervention was the Clean Air Act of 1956, a PREVENTIVE measure.

Summary:
Lomborg seems to employ an invalid syllogistic type logic… It’s easy enough to spot the problem. His claim that Climate Change won’t be catastrophic and that the earth will cope, he derives by comparison with oil spills and smog. Clearly CC is not a problem similar to smog or an oil spill. The correct comparison is to look at co2 spikes with concomitant global warming as far as we can discern it in the geological record… the Permian extinction, the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum etc…

It’s also worth noting he takes a reductive perspective, isolating phenomenon like oil spills and London smog. Clearly CC requires a total systems approach, since it encompasses and interacts with every life system.

Claim 2: Climate Change is natural and a cyclic phenomena
Lomborg attempts to obfuscate the reality of what is happening by confusing the relevant information with irrelevant noise as he diverts our attention to other factors that CAN effect climate change: orbital variation – precession, obliquity, eccentricity – and accentuated solar activity. But the operative word is CAN. And the question is: in what way?

It is acknowledged that solar activity is not exceptional in our present era. Similarly, the components of orbital variation – precession, obliquity, eccentricity – seem to be unexceptional in their phase. For instance, obliquity, the angle of the earth’s tilt, is close to the median point, while the earth’s orbit is presently circular, rather than a skewed oval shape. The indications are that we are fortunate to live in a time of very favourable climate.

Indeed, it might be the case that orbital variation doesn’t lead to catastrophic global warming, but is rather the inciting cause of the to-and-fro cycles from glacial to ‘temperate’ interglacial periods. And is moreover a determinant of which hemisphere, the Northern or the Southern, has the warmer summers. And finally influences the temperature difference between the summers and the winters, whether the range is narrow or extreme.

Thus there are two points to consider with the other factors Lomborg cites as causes of climate change. Are they adversely affecting the climate now? The answer seems to be no. Secondly is there any evidence in the geological record that these factors have forced cataclysmic global warming? And again the answer seems to be no.

So what does the science say is the cause of the current pattern of global warming? The data is very clear on this: the rising global temperatures *correlate perfectly with the increased co2 levels in the atmosphere resulting from the burning of fossil fuels (see caveat below).

Finally if we look to the past, the geological record does offer up examples of catastrophic global warming. In every instance it seems excess co2 caused by extreme volcanic activity and/or methane hydrate release seem to be implicated as possible causes.

Because climate change has happened naturally in the past is not an argument for accepting human induced catastrophic climate change. We are responsible for human induced CC and it is within our power to prevent it. Given that is the case, what is the moral imperative?

*Caveat: It’s true a co2 correlation alone doesn’t necessarily signify cause and effect, but there’s enough evidence to conclude a cause and effect dynamic. The physics tells us co2 in the atmosphere causes warming. Corroborating the science are the best climate models, which successfully elicit the observed pattern of temperature for the 20th century. The dominant cause of warming in the climate models is co2. Moreover, the data in the geological record supports the known science in two ways. Firstly, in the change from glacial to temperate climates, the co2 levels rise in line with the temperature (see Addendum below). Secondly, there is the known correspondence of co2/methane spikes with global warming extinction events. Finally, an experiment which confirms the scientific understanding and the supporting geological data has been carried out… the industrial revolution.

Addendum: The data over the last 650 000 years is uncontested, and clearly shows the up-and-down swings between ice ages (glacial) and temperate (inter-glacial) climate, and depicts a perfect correlation of co2 and temperature patterns. But the co2 lags 400-800 years behind the temperature rise. The prevailing scientific view is small changes in the earth’s orbit initiate the warming, but is not enough to explain the magnitude of the temperature rise, which continues over 5000 years. The only viable explanation is the co2 feedback suggested by the correlation. The initial warming releases co2, and the co2 magnifies the warming. If the sceptics refute this, then they must come up with another candidate to explain the exceptional warming, but why ignore the co2 effect, when it’s staring us in the face.

The Cost/Benefit approach to Climate Change
Lomborg praises the US administration for rejecting Kyoto at the same time criticising the Kyoto draft for being weak and ineffectual. Kyoto will give us 6 years respite, an expensive waste, Lomborg claims, for measures that will not prevent CC. But he fails to explain the political context. Kyoto is weak because of corporate lobbying and the US administration demands that the draft be watered down. So the targets were weakened to accommodate the American administration and then they rejected it anyway.

That Kyoto won’t prevent CC again puts Lomborg with the environmentalists. The difference however between Lomborg and the environmentalists is that they progress to a rational conclusion. Recognising the mere tokenism of Kyoto they demand far more radical measures. That said, some environmentalists acknowledge Kyoto’s importance as a crucial first step to demonstrate it is possible to act globally and moreover as proof that regulatory measures can succeed and that the economy will adjust successfully in accord with a change in the way we consume energy.

The Lomborg approach to climate change is to do a cost/benefit analysis. But to whose cost and for whose benefit? Lomborg thinks we should accept the ‘inevitability’ of CC and spend the resources on mitigating the consequences. But what are the consequences he wants us to accept? At the very least, the probable deaths of millions, disruption to societies, frequent extreme weather events the world over, possibly the melting of the ice sheets, a process once started that is unstoppable and will cause serious flooding of major cities across the globe. And we can forget about a decent future for our grandchildren. I’m afraid investing in anti-malarial drugs to offset the consequences of accepting CC is not going to cut the mustard. As Monbiot says, if Lomborg thinks he can put a cost to the deaths, destruction and massive disruption of lives then he has spent too much time at his calculator and not enough time with human beings.

Not only is it not possible to put a cost on human lives, but it is simply not possible to do a cost/benefit analysis for something where the outcomes are so unpredictable and possibly of the utmost gravity. What price the ‘legacy’ we leave future generations? The climate and the natural environment are not commodities that can be given a price tag. They are fundamental systems for the existence of life. So intrinsic is the climate to life and human activity, the consequences of CC to human societies for even the ‘milder’ outcomes suggested are incalculable… from environmental refugees to wars for basic resources to the collapse of small and large scale economies. A report issued on August 16th (2006) warned that the Chinese economy could crash by 2015 because of a scarcity of fresh water – commissioned not by an environmental group but by powerful corporations (Shell, Coca-cola, Cargill…).

Lomborg bases his cost/benefit analysis on the ‘milder’ predictions for co2 levels and temperature rises by 2100, presented as the most likely outcomes (at the time of his book)*, which exposes the limits and dangers of such an approach. Does Lomborg appreciate how to measure a risk quotient, weighing the likelihoods together with the consequences? It is not necessarily the most likely outcome that should be assigned the greater priority. The magnitude and gravity of the consequences can determine what takes precedence. Outcomes like catastrophic CC might be considered less likely, but the likelihood is significantly high, and given the impact is a possible species end-event, the rational and moral imperative is to commit all resources to the prevention of such an outcome. Anything less from our generation would be the greatest act of criminal irresponsibility in the history of the human project.

* The rise in co2 levels has jumped in 3 out of the last 4 years, and is almost certain to do so again this year (2006) in line with the heatwave and high temperatures. Possibly a sign of feedbacks, and if it proves to be the trend then it suggests the climate models are underestimating the pace of CC. Similarly, the melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet and signs the Greenland ice sheet is beginning to melt, further suggest the climate models might have to be revised upwards.

APPENDIX 1: The extent of the world’s Forest Cover
Lomborg claims the world’s forest cover has been increasing slightly since the 1950’s. The first problem is his data. Taken from FAO yearbooks it is acknowledged by the FAO as misleading. The figures seem to show forest cover increasing annually throughout the 1950‘s. But forest isn’t suddenly springing up. Instead more existing forest is being discovered, while more advanced technology, satellite photography for instance, is improving the measurements. Secondly, Lomborg’s approach is typified by the accountant’s mentality. He tries to count the trees of the world instead of looking at forest systems which interact critically with the climate system. Monoculture tree plantations, tree ‘deserts’ and tree farms do not equate with forest ecosystems that have evolved with the climate over millions of years. For example, the best scientific models predict that if the Amazon rainforest continues to be diminished until the critical threshold of 40% reduction is reached, the whole forest will inexorably die back*. It is recognised this would have a devastating impact on the climate. Thirdly even data collected by satellite images underestimates the loss of forest cover. Satellite images show 17% forest clearance for the Amazon, but this neglects to measure selective logging, where the trees are taken from under the canopy. Adjusting the figures to match the reality, it is more like 25-30% forest wipeout.

*Dynamic systems when they reach a point of instability can suddenly collapse (the Amazon forest) or dramatically run out of control (the climate system) – a consideration Lomborg seems to neglect in his analysis.

Adapted from research notes for a CC debate, summer 2006

I ask you to pressure the government to condemn the terrorist attack on innocent Lebanese civilians and the country’s infrastructure. Because Hizbollah has captured two Israeli soldiers in an attempt to gain leverage for the release of Lebanese prisoners the Israeli government unjustifiably continues to incarcerate does not legitimise an attack on the innocent Lebanese people and the country’s necessary infrastructure. It goes without saying that Hizbollah should be condemned for their actions, but that in no way justifies the Israeli response, the collective punishment of the Lebanese people, which is a serious crime under International Humanitarian Law.

We know the US-Israeli (with UK/Tony Blair compliance) agenda is to reorganise the Middle East for their energy and strategic interests… which includes hegemony of Israel in the region as the only nuclear power, the weakening of Syria because it is not a pro Western client, and a change of government in Iran towards a US friendly regime because it has the 3rd largest oil supplies and is China and Russia friendly, official enemies of the West in the global struggle for control of resources, markets and capital hegemony; add to that the control of the largest and cheapest oil supplies in the world which are in Iraq; and finally the establishment of US bases in the region.

Let’s deal with the real issues: Israel’s continued expansion of the Palestinian West Bank (Sharon stated a few years back he wants a million more jews from eastern Europe in the West bank by the end of the decade); annexation of Jerusalem; Israeli occupation of Syrian land, the Golan Heights; the ghettoisation of a people, as Palestinians are forced into enclaves with a wall built around them. In addition, there are the human rights abuses, human shields, curfews, restricted movements, an Israeli armed forces shoot to kill policy, invasive stop and searches, war crimes like the bulldozing of Rafah… and of course US demand for CONTROL of oil.

I call on the UK government to condemn Israeli state terrorism and disproportionate aggression. What is needed is a negotiated peace process that involves all the Middle East players and a strengthened UN without the US veto on Israel’s behalf. This cannot be a process mediated solely by the US and UK who are responsible for much of the problem and its continuance.

Yours sincerely

Ref: documentary ‘Globalisation is good,’ transmitted Channel 4, 21st Sept 2003

In the most tendentious of approaches Johan Norberg had a preconceived theory that only required the garnering of suitable ‘evidence’ to support his contentions. This evidence was selective, partial and isolated from the broader political and economic context. Firstly he highlighted the successes of Taiwan by merely providing testimony from those who were to some extent successful within that system. At one point he seems to transform a joke that says if there are six Taiwanese one will be running a business into valid evidence that one in six Taiwanese is a company chairman. Secondly, Norberg wilfully overlooked the insidious role that the global economic institutions and the Washington consensus have played in dictating the economic conditions for the poorest countries (although often among the richest in terms of commodities and primary resources). Conditions which have locked developing countries into a nexus of economic determinism, corruption, debt and entrenched poverty. In exchange for vital aid and loans, the Washington Consensus demands the restructure of the country’s economy, which amounts to the exploitation of their markets, resources and labour.

There was surely the need to explain the reasons why Taiwan has succeeded in this climate where some of its neighbours in East Asia have failed. For example, the Taiwanese government introduced Land Reforms that allowed ordinary workers to own the land and moreover gave them access to credit and training on modern cultivation methods. In other words the land was placed in the ownership of the many rather than the few (corporate owners). This policy incidentally is not one advocated by the IMF and runs contrary to the wishes of financial institutions. As Joseph Stiglitz’ analysis attests: Asian countries like Thailand that adhered to the tenets of the IMF and Washington consensus suffered for their compliance whereas those who eschewed their advice and followed their own programmes have fared much better and in many cases prospered (Taiwan, Korea, China, Malaysia).

Norberg’s second story ran like a marketing presentation of the ethical awareness and practices of the Nike brand. That the company no longer employed children, that the workers were now paid at decent local rates and had access to a canteen and surrounding lawns, that they had access to training (which to me appeared superficial from the footage shown) – that these reformed practices might be due to the bad publicity generated by the exposes of ethical journalists and the ensuing boycott campaigns by so called anti-globalisation protestors he failed to acknowledge. Moreover he presented Nike’s model example. But does this exemplify standard practice? The concern lingers, since it was not addressed, whether all the factories Nike utilises adhere to the same standards, especially where work is contracted out to local sweatshops.

In the third case study (Kenya) Norberg correctly identified some of the problems of unfair trade. In the first place tarrifs are placed on Kenyan exports which make them uncompetitive in the global market place. Secondly the EU and US subsidise their own farmers which leads to dumping of cheap surplus goods on the poorer markets, thus destroying the value and future feasability of indigenous production. But he failed to inform us of the reasons why many poorer countries are unable to respond in kind, that is, to take measures to protect their own markets. The richer, powerful nations especially the US dominate the global economic institutions like the IMF and, although the WTO appears more democratic, as we have witnessed in Cancun, the US and EU stand shoulder to shoulder against any meaningful reforms that would effect a fair and equitable trade system. In effect they govern the rules of the IMF and form a powerful coalition in the WTO that keeps the developing world in poverty and want. Moreover because of poverty and the obligations of debt, the IMF and Washington consensus can impose economic conditions on poorer countries for the management of their debt. This consistently amounts to privatising the economy, drastically reducing spending on public services, deregulation for foreign investors, opening up the domestic market to foreign imports while relinquishing rights to protecting their own nascent industries. In effect, the population works harder (if they are employed at all) for less remuneration in real terms while public services deteriorate and domestic markets collapse faced with competition from the cheaper imports of well-established and powerful foreign companies. Indeed this contrasts with the strategy employed by Taiwan (and China etc) to achieve successful transition of their economy. To allow indigenous industries to evolve to a competitive stature, Taiwan, applied strong govt intervention to protect domestic markets.

But my main criticism is Norberg’s complacent use of the term anti-globalisation movement. Either he is ill-informed or this was a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issues and concerns surrounding the current global economic paradigm. He disdainfully alluded to protestors vandalising McDonalds fast food outlets during the demonstrations against the G8. His portrayal of the movement, which he complacently terms the anti-globalisation movement, amounted to no more than this. The inference to be drawn is that the protestors are wantonly antagonistic to multi-nationals or global brands. This is a complete misrepresentation of the movement and their concerns. Although united by similar concerns the movement in its infancy was admittedly amorphous without a fully articulated position. However as it has evolved, what has emerged is a well-defined stance and rigorous critique of the current economic paradigm. The welfare subsidies the US and EU donate to their domestic industries while preventing developing countries from adopting similar policies, the exaggerated tariffs the US and EU place on produce from developing countries while ensuring the tariffs on their own produce is kept low, G8 hegemony and control of economic institutions which means they determine the global economic agenda and make it work for their benefit and to the detriment of poorer countries, the insidious conditions the Washington consensus and the IMF impose on poor countries in debt which amounts to privatisation of the economy and exploitation of their labour and resources, the financial rules and currency relations that allow ruthless speculators to undermine entire economies simply to satisfy their personal greed, the unethical dealings of Western banks with dictators often resulting in personal loans disguised as government loans for which the oppressed population is then held liable even long after the dictator is deposed, the exploitation of cheap labour and child labour by Western companies in developing countries – outlines the primary concerns of the movement Norberg disparages.

If Norberg is serious about an equitable economic system, then I suggest he too is a so-called anti-globalisation supporter. I suspect, however, he has an ulterior agenda given that he works for a business foundation.

In sum then this documentary was flawed in three major respects. Firstly, Norberg has the affront to present his documentary as a critique of the anti-globalisation movement yet he has clearly failed to investigate that movement or attempt to understand it and its concerns. The parody of the movement he presents means his argument fails on its premise alone. Secondly, he has a preconceived theory and tendentiously selects any detail however trivial or superficial to support the theory excluding all the other evidence that might contradict his stance. Thirdly by decontextualising what is presented, his account is skewed and denies a broad understanding of the problems and their solutions. Norberg substitutes investigative journalism for a slant, an opinion and an ill-informed opinion at that.

It’s blatantly hypocritical for the government to trumpet the moral case for war against Iraq. It seems the government has abandoned trying to convince the electorate on the basis of weapons of mass destruction because their arguments were failing. The evidence that Saddam has significant stocks of chemical or biological weapons (and the capability to use them) and is on the road to developing a nuclear capability has not been demonstrated. Indeed the UK government has flogged a doctored 11 year old postgraduate thesis to prove their case and more recently the IAEA has discredited Britain’s evidence – revealing the documents were fake – that Saddam has tried to obtain supplies of uranium from Niger.

If we objectively examine the moral case then the Bush-Blair agenda doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Recent history exposes the Policy Strategy of the Whitehouse and their associates. The CIA helped the Ba’ath party to power. The US and British governments supported Saddam in the Iraq/Iran war and in the aftermath continued to supply him with weapons in full knowledge he had used chemical weapons against Iran and had tortured and killed his own people. We know America (that is, the elite in power, their associates and collaborators) supplied him with the agents for Anthrax. Of course, spokespeople for the Whitehouse try to justify this by claiming they were supporting ‘the lesser of two evils’, but this just doesn’t hold water. The people of the world haven’t forgotten, if the Whitehouse conveniently has, that under Reagan, they covertly supplied arms to Iran and the money raised they used to fund, train and supply with arms contra terrorists in Nicaragua to undermine a legitimate and democratic government. In other words, the US Administration supported the ‘greater of two evils’ as well as the lesser in the Middle East, while at the same time backing terrorism in Central America. Less British Officials forget their own double standard here, let’s remind ourselves that Margaret Thatcher had senior Ministers go to Baghdad to curry favour with Saddam in the attempt to clinch major arms deals. Where was the moral case here? It seems self-evident that the willingness of the US and British (that is, the elite who hold power) to pursue their self-interest to the detriment of other nations (by which I mean the general population) and the complacent ease with which they employ such double standards is a major cause of resentment in the Middle East and elsewhere. Moreover such hypocrisy only helps to fuel terrorism.

I feel it necessary to debunk the nonsense that we’ve given Saddam twelve years to disarm. It was the US administration that made the political decision not to follow through and topple Saddam 12 years ago when they had him on his knees. We might also remind ourselves that Saddam had 7 years of weapons inspections before America had them withdrawn, and America and Britain have operated no fly zones over Iraq conducting a continual bombing campaign. Not to mention the Iraqi people have suffered under 12 years of sanctions. I’m not trying to suggest a tyrant like Saddam has not in that time played games with the weapons inspectors or tried to clandestinely increase his weapons potential. Let’s be clear, what I am saying is he has not had a free hand for 12 years and is considered by most experts to be significantly weaker in capacity than he was 12 years ago. Colin Powell stated this less than a year ago. So why the rush to war now? And we might legitimately wonder if he had a greater capacity then, why was he allowed to stay in power when he was at the mercy of America? It seems the Bush I Administration, afraid of a democratic movement especially when 65% of the population are Shia muslims who share mutual interests with Iran, deemed it preferable to maintain the weakened dictator Saddam because it better served US self-interest. Despite this, in a shameful act, the Bush I Administration encouraged the Shia muslims in the South and the Kurds in the North to revolt against Saddam, knowing they (the Americans) had no intention of intervening to help. Noam Chomsky reminds us of an opposition Iraqi general telling the BBC “he and his men had repeatedly asked the American forces for weapons, ammunition and food to help them carry on the fight against Saddam’s forces,” only to be refused each time. Without American help, it was clear to most people this would lead to failure of the uprising and brutal reprisals against the Shias and the Kurds. A cynic might think this was a ploy to weaken all parties in Iraq. We are repeatedly told Saddam has been given 12 years, yet it is clear enough he wouldn’t have had those 12 years if the Bush I administration hadn’t chosen to keep him in power.

So why topple Saddam now? It’s clear America’s reliance on almost a quarter of their oil from Saudi Arabia is a major factor. We know corporate elites are concerned about the stability of Saudi Arabia and continued reliance on this source. It’s clear America wishes to maintain its control over the Middle East and its oil reserves. They have 30,000 troops permanently stationed in the Saudi gulf and continue to support the Al Fahds undemocratic regime which by International Standards has an appalling Human Rights record. America donates enormous aid to Israel in contravention of the US Foreign Aid Act that outlaws aid to any country engaged in covert nuclear weapons development. We should certainly question the motives of a US administration that continually advocates policies which advance their own interests in the Middle East, even to the extent of keeping the despot Saddam in place when it suits them, supporting the totalitarian Al Fahds in Saudi Arabia, and uncritically aiding the Israeli administration who remain in violation of numerous UN resolutions. Where is the morality here?

It’s not the case 9/11 awakened Bush to the threat of Saddam. It’s on record that in 1996 Richard Perles and others at the heart of the Bush Administration, in policy documents to Netanyahu’s Israeli government, advocated strikes on Iraq, promising American support. Is it conceivable that the American Administration is genuinely concerned that Saddam poses a threat to the world with weapons of mass destruction? You would think then they would try to curtail his funds to pay for weapons development, yet they allow Saddam to solicit for half the profit on the 20 dollar a barrel mark up price on the UN’s Iraqi oil-for-food concession. But again America has benefited from this by receiving Iraqi oil. Yet it’s clear the Bush administration sees the removal of Saddam Hussain as desirable to securing Americas long-term interests in the region. The Project for the New American Century, a pressure group established by the likes of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, were advocating regime change in Baghdad back in January 1998. And the reasons had little to do with a war on terror. Rather they perceived Saddam as a menace to American interests in the region and to their ally, Israel. In a letter to President Clinton, they wrote that without Saddam’s removal “…a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard.” Some commentators have noted that a war on Iraq conceals a wider strategy, as it will ‘justify’ maintaining a greater American force in the Gulf. There are precedents to justify this concern. As George Monbiot points out, in the wake of 9/11 America established “forward bases” in Asia which even after the war in Afghanistan still remain in place. Monbiot quotes assistant secretary of state, Elizabeth Jones: “When the Afghan conflict is over we will not leave Central Asia. We have long-term plans and interests in the region.” And Monbiot further reveals, the US move into Djibouti as part of the war on terror happened to coincide with America securing control of the Bab al-Mandab – one of the world’s two most important oil shipping lanes. America already controls the other one. For these reasons I think people like myself are concerned about the US administration dictating policy on Iraq, when clearly their agenda conceals motives of self-interest and a vision of “full spectrum dominance”. Moreover I am suspicious of being swept to an unnecessary war by an Administration whose members are compromised by their connections to the oil industry and additonal corporate interests.

We are constantly reminded of resolution 1441, but never hear George Bush or Tony Blair mention resolution 194 or 242. If the US administration wanted the UN to be truly relevant then they would engage with the International Community in enforcing the resolutions outstanding against Israel. Recently, we heard Paul Wolfowitz in an interview with Trevor McDonald say that if France vetoes the second resolution, that won’t be multilateralism but the worst kind of unilateralism. If that is the case, then I for one wish Wolfowitz’s own US Administration would apply the same logic to themselves and stop using their veto to scupper resolutions against Israel that have the backing of all other members of the UN. In January 1976 a resolution brought to the Security Council to resolve the Israeli-Palestine problem proposed a two-state settlement on the pre-June 1967 borders (the Green Line). The resolution acknowledged both the state of Israel and a new Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza strip, and guaranteed all states in the area the right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries. Despite being backed by the international consensus, including the support of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the PLO, it was opposed by Israel and ultimately vetoed by the US. As we know, the American administration has no intention of restraining Israel, their greatest ally to dominance of the Middle East. Indeed, again, we have a policy document drafted by Richard Perles and others in the Bush administration that advises Israel to scupper the Oslo agreement and relinquish no land to the Palestinians. Instead they advise continued expansion so further squeezing out the Palestinians. Sharon, like his predecessors, we know, operates such an expansion policy: he has pledged to bring to the settlements a further one million Jewish immigrants by the end of the decade. What is not required is another so called ‘peace process’ brokered by the US administration since they share the same agenda as Israel. And we have Sharon’s conditions for a Palestinian state on record as recently restated to the Quartet: Israel to determine the borders of any Palestinian state, enforced demilitarisation of Palestine, Israel to control Palestinian borders and air space, and govern who the Palestinians can have diplomatic ties with. This absurdity would be laughable if it weren’t so serious. No, what is required is for an International Conference on the Israeli-Palestine conflict that endeavours to establish a genuine and sovereign Palestinian state along the Green Line, and at the same time recognises the state of Israel and her rights to peace and security.

Everyone agrees that the world would be better off without Saddam Hussain as the Iraqi leader. Of course we must make sure he is not allowed to develop weapons of mass destruction. The heart of the matter is the framework within which we do this. I for one do not wish to follow the tune of a US fronted corporate imperialist policy, especially when the same Administration and their associates have in the past proved a major contributor to the problem. As is clearly demonstrated by history – from the CIA installing the Ba’ath Party to Bush I’s decision to allow Saddam to remain in power in 1991 for reasons of political expediency – it is by following such policies and an agenda of self-interest that has led the world to this parlous state in the first place and will certainly perpetuate similar problems for the future.

War is not the answer. Saddam is not an imminent threat to world security. The Iraqi army is composed of conscripts, including unwilling Kurds and Shias, who do not support Saddam and his regime. In the Gulf “war” of 1991, Pentagon estimates of up to 100,000 conscripts, untrained and defenceless, were slaughtered in what was infamously labelled a “turkey shoot.” After 12 years of sanctions and intermittent bombing over the no fly zones, Iraq has no defences to speak of. War will arrest the UN food programme and throw into chaos the infrastructure, resulting in food and water shortages and sewage problems. Millions of innocent Iraqis will be threatened with starvation and disease. The Iraqi people have suffered enough. This will not be a war, but a humanitarian disaster.

I here propose another solution to the Iraqi problem. I suggest the International community engage on the Israeli-Palestine problem with the same energy they have expended on the question of Iraq. I suggest we put an end to the sanctions against the Iraqi people so that they can prosper in health and education, and in time, despite Saddam’s efforts, they will bring about regime change for themselves. Of course at the same time, enforce and strengthen the measures to prevent Saddam from developing his military capacity. It will be easier to garner worldwide support on this, especially full support in the Middle East, if the West has already shown its commitment to the Middle East by engaging on the Israeli-Palestine problem and bringing to an end the devastating sanctions policy on the Iraqi people.

In the event of one ‘unreasonable veto’ on the second resolution, Tony Blair had stated he was prepared to endorse the war, claiming the ‘moral majority’. What is unreasonable to Tony Blair may be perfectly reasonable to the French say, or the Russians, or the Chinese. One of the tenets of Democracy requires the individual members submit to the will of the majority (with the caveat that the majority will doesn’t erode the Universal Rights of the individual members). Still, why didn’t Blair and Bush proceed with the second resolution? It’s disingenuous to blame the French and their stated intention to use their veto, since Tony Blair had already anticipated this and stated his intent to ignore an ‘unreasonable veto.’ The truth seems simple enough. Firstly, Bush and Blair were unconvinced they could secure the nine votes required by the Security Council. Secondly, it became clear they were evidently facing three ‘unreasonable vetoes,’ since three of the five permanent members – Russia and China as well as France – had stated their opposition to a second resolution at the present time. In other words Mr Blair had no majority, ‘moral’ or otherwise. If Mr Blair listened to his own electorate who he is supposed to represent and indeed the people of the world at large, I think he would find the moral majority against this war under the auspices of American fronted corporate imperialism.

Mr Blair has tried to claim for himself credit by going down the UN route, but if he then ignores the consensus and flouts the will of the UN, this only reveals his intentions as insincere. For it only demonstrates he was going to use a UN endorsement – which he clearly expected to get – to justify his resolve for war. But now that the UN’s position is not in agreement with Mr Blair’s, the UN is to be ignored. Recourse to the UN route, it seems, was nothing more than a public relations exercise. Of course Blair and Bush are trying to scapegoat France by misrepresenting Jacques Chirac’s position. Chirac does not rule out indefinitely a second resolution that sanctions military action, but only at the present moment when “there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, that is to say, to disarm Iraq.” France’s position is clear on this: war is supportable, but only as a last resort. One may disagree with France’s position, but under the rules of the UN, France has every right to their veto. If there is something wrong with the single veto system, then it ought to be challenged and changed. But of course, the US Administration will not allow this to happen given they use the power of veto more than any other country! Just as they would not sign up to Kyoto, nor the International Criminal Court. Just as they hampered meaningful progress at the World Summit. Just as they seceded from the ABM treaty. Just as they are initiating new nuclear weapons programmes while calling on Iraq to disarm. American establishment commentators are repeatedly saying the UN will prove an irrelevance if it fails to back them on this. In truth, had the UN any relevance, a majority vote against America’s position would be a problem for America not the UN. What this episode has displayed to the world is that the UN is an undemocratic institution, anachronistic and powerless to deal with the issues we face today. If the UN doesn’t do what America wants, America is going to do it regardless. And the horse trading (regarded as bribery by ordinary people like myself) reported in the media has only made a mockery of any legitimate International cooperation.

I call on Tony Blair to campaign for an overhaul of the UN, replacing it with an International body that has real potency, that is founded on democratic principles, that denies the power of veto to any country, that requires compliance by all members to its resolutions, and establishes International law with an International Criminal Court, with enough authority for universal enforcement. Of course, we all know the US administration would be the first to oppose an International body with real powers outwith their control. Such an International body may even lead to all members adhering to the Declaration of Universal Human Rights and a move by all member countries towards genuine democracy. In my opinion, something along these lines is the only way forward to meet the challenges of global terrorism, rogue states (whether the US, UK, or Iraq), arms proliferation, majority world poverty, and environmental degradation.

Finally to diminish the possibility of similar scenarios developing in the future, I appeal to the US administration to stop interfering in the domestic affairs of other countries in order to advance their self-interest, often supporting and propping up tyrannical regimes in the process, or undermining legitimate democratic ones. I would also ask Tony Blair to implement legislation to stop Britain from supplying arms to tyrannical regimes like Indonesia. Indeed, I firmly believe we shouldn’t be supplying weapons to anyone. I ask Tony Blair to seek legislation within the EU demanding that all EU countries refrain from selling arms. Then the EU would be in a position to put diplomatic pressure on the US to follow suit. As America and Britain are the two biggest arms suppliers in the world, the hypocrisy and the Orwellian irony is not lost on the rest of the world when the same two administrations are rushing to war to supposedly disarm a defenceless Iraq.

Yours sincerely

Original Version published on the Peace and Progress website Feb 2003

Evolution is a theory of diachronic determinism and chance; we are to a large extent governed by our genes, which are the residue of a diachronic process of chance. Love, war, altruism, capitalism (I joke) can be explained away by Natural Selection, a mechanism of chance mutation and conferred advantage.

The mechanism of evolution is said to be: copy, vary, select… copy, vary, select… ad infinitum (or at least until we destroy life on earth or perhaps rip apart space-time altogether). But that explains very little. What is intrinsic to this that leads to life and sight and consciousness and humour and love and … and why is their light and time at all? Why doesn’t copy, vary, select not just lead to detritus. For anything to come into existence it must have been intrinsically possible in the first place, even if it takes a process of copy, vary, select (and even if this involves chance as claimed, whatever that may be) to realise the possibility.

TOE works under a similar assumption but takes us deeper into time and matter. The whole universe is composed of a single substance, vibrating strings from which all else emerges governed by the universal laws of physics. That the universe should evolve to this physical state is assumed to be the result of these laws but is never proved. Do these universal laws of physics predict the emergence of life… of human beings? Do they predict the world human beings have constructed? Do they account for my behaviour? There are no known physical laws to account for my behaviour . On the emergence of life the physicists (as do all honest scientists) fall silent. And beyond the point of life emergence, they capitulate to the evolutionists whose explanations mostly fail to satisfy the rigorous scientific criteria ostensibly held by the physicists. The physicists will say it is enough to reduce everything to a single substance and postulate the universal laws that governs this stuff. Ironically like postulating God, these universal laws mystify rather than demystify nature. That a single substance and a few universal laws can conjure such a manifold wonder of galaxies, nebulae, planets, canyons, lakes, rainforests, entrained starlings, The tragedy of King Lear, Gorecki’s Sorrowful Songs, Groucho Marx, free will, mystical experience, the skylark, can no less astonish the soul. And why those universal laws? And if the answer is that ‘it is just so’, then it is no less a wonder and moreover no less pressing on us to discover our place in the scheme of this ‘it is just so.’ Laplace tried to replace God with the laws of the universe, but this begs the question, why those laws. And if it is a ‘just so’ answer then we are back at the beginning of an unfathomable mystery.

To reduce the manifold wonder of the universe to a point of singularity is to not go far enough. But the big picture can be viewed through the other end of the telescope. The evolution of the cosmos is transcendental, for beings with free will have evolved. And if I’m faced with an ethical choice, quantum mechanics and string theory are irrelevant to what is significant to the situation. When it comes to the most important questions the limits of science are all too apparent. Science seeks deterministic laws to explain everything, but what defines us as human beings is our free will. The question each of us must answer for ourselves is: what is the meaning of my free will? And ultimately, what is at stake? It seems before we seek the answer to life, we are asked to seek the question, and this calls for a religious perspective.

1. A body as hot as the sun emits short wave radiation (in accordance with Wien’s Distribution Law) and short wave radiation passes right through greenhouse gases. While the colder earth releases long wave radiation the greenhouse gases absorb.

2. With no greenhouse atmosphere the earth would be almost as a cold as the moon (which is 33C colder). With an excess concentration of greenhouse gases however, not enough radiation will escape to space, and the planet will overheat. A natural result of the hydrological and carbon cycles, a limited greenhouse effect is necessary to keep us warm, but an exaggerated greenhouse effect, provoked by the burning of fossil fuels to the extent of too much carbon in the atmosphere, will cook the planet.

CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere:
Corroborating data for the greenhouse phenomenon is there in the geological record and ice core samples. During ice ages the CO2 concentration is about 200 parts-per-million (ppm), whereas in the warmer periods between ice ages, the concentration reaches around 270ppm. *The data is consistent with the theoretical understanding (see addendum below). Pre-industrial levels were around 280ppm. By 1958 concentrations were 315ppm, and by the 1990’s atmospheric CO2 levels had soared to 360ppm. Currently above 380ppm, CO2 levels are possibly higher than they’ve been for millions of years1. Unsurprisingly, recent global temperatures are outbidding the previous highs and rising2. Nineteen of the twenty warmest years on record have occurred since 1980. Of particular concern is the fact that CO2 and methane (another greenhouse gas) are implicated in several major extinction events.

1. The UK government’s chief scientific advisor, David King, suggested CO2 levels were now higher than they’ve been for 55 million years. Notably, at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary, a thermal maximum extinction event occurred. What initiated the increase in temperature (and rise in CO2 levels) is unknown, but a large amount of carbon 12 isotope appears in the geological record at this time, the signature of methane hydrate release. It’s possible as temperatures soared, methane hydrates frozen solid beneath permafrost and the seabed thawed, expelling large amounts of the greenhouse gas methane (becoming CO2 as it dissolves) into the atmosphere. This would have led to an exaggerated greenhouse effect and a much greater temperature rise. (A methane hydrate release also occurred 251 million years ago. See below, the Permian extinction) It seems however, for the entire Eocene period from 55 million to 35 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 concentrations remained high. Possibly David King was meaning levels of CO2 haven’t risen from glacial-interglacial base levels (200-270ppm) to current levels and beyond for 55 million years.

2. The indications are the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is responsible for the temperature rise in the modern industrial era. The CO2 data for the twentieth century if input into the most reliable scientific models, with other forcings, which are small by comparison, and the temporary cooling effect of global dimming factored in, elicits a pattern that closely matches the graph of observed temperature change.

*Addendum: The data over the last 650 000 years is uncontested, and clearly shows the up-and-down swings between ice ages (glacial) and temperate (inter-glacial) climate, and depicts a perfect correlation of CO2 and temperature patterns. But the CO2 lags 400-800 years behind the temperature rise. The prevailing scientific view is small changes in the earth’s orbit initiate the warming, but is not enough to explain the magnitude of the temperature rise, which continues over 5000 years. The only viable explanation is the CO2 feedback suggested by the correlation. The initial warming releases CO2, and the CO2 magnifies the warming.
***

Global dimming :
The scientific data shows a 0.6C increase in global temperatures has occurred over the last century. But the true damage CO2 has in store for the global climate has been temporarily restrained paradoxically by an effect of pollution. Tiny droplets of water condense on pollutant dust – particulates of soot, ash and sulphates. The cumulative water droplets, like a giant shimmering mirror, shield the earth from the sun’s rays. Measurements worldwide confirm that the amount of solar energy penetrating to the earth has dropped significantly compared to that of the 1950’s. Commensurate with this: pan evaporation rates (how quickly a pan of water in open air evaporates) have declined. This result is at first anomalous given that global temperatures have increased. But it is not the surrounding temperature that determines the evaporation so much as the increase in energy from the photons as sunlight hits the water in the pan. The results are conclusive: less evaporation means less sunlight coming through. Project Indoex, an international collaboration of scientists set up to measure the effects of pollution on sunlight, confirmed the effect. The skies over the Northern Maldives are overcast with polluted air descending from India, but a front of cold air from Antarctica keeps the Southern tip fresh and clear. Indoex discovered sunlight in the north was 10% less than that measured at the southern tip. The full impact of CO2 warming has been hidden by a cooling effect caused by pollution. Yet despite an average 4-8% loss of sunlight1 (from the 1950’s to the 1990’s) due to pollution, global temperatures are on the up.

1. The Guardian seems to have overstated the effect in one of their reports when they put the amount of sunlight loss at 20 %.

***

Runaway global warming: accelerating levels of CO2:
Just as we discover that global dimming has been masking the full effects of increased CO2, the rise in CO2 concentrations is showing signs of acceleration. In previous decades CO2 has risen steadily by 1.5ppm a year. But the increase inflated to 2.08ppm in 2002 and to 2.54ppm in 2003. Dramatically increased fossil fuel emissions in China and India and no slowdown in the US, Europe, Canada, Australia, Russia and Japan, look like driving the acceleration further. With the impact of CO2 on a 30-year time lag, it is the years beyond 2030 that will reap the devastation of accelerating CO2 levels. Yet with extreme weather events more prevalent, global warming is already wreaking destruction: from the severe floods1 that besieged Central and Eastern Europe in 2002 to the savage heatwave2 the following year that killed an estimated 35 000 people. This year has witnessed the devastation of hurricane Katrina3, drought and famine in Niger, forest fires raging across Europe and an unprecedented drought afflicting the Amazon basin4. Worldwide there is manifest disruption of the seasons5. The trend of global temperatures is towards a rapidly warming world. The last ten years with the exception of 1996 have been the warmest years on record. And as cleaner technologies continue to reduce pollution that has till now contributed a cooling effect, global warming is on course to increase further.

1. In the 2002 floods, rainfall in parts of Central and Eastern Europe was the highest since records began. There has been a significant increase in more destructive heavy rainfall events across the earth’s mid-latitudes. In the UK, the percentage of rain coming from heavy rainfall events doubled over a 35 year period (from the 1960s to the mid 1990s). As temperature rises, the air’s capacity to hold water increases exponentially, leading to significantly heavier rainfall. In England and Wales, the major floods of 2000 were the worst ever recorded for a ninety-day period, the September to December rainfall total the highest since records began in 1776.

5. In the Northern Hemisphere, spring is blooming weeks earlier while the onset of autumn is increasingly delayed. In 2002, NASA satellite data showed the growing season had extended by 18 days over the period of the previous 20 years (The Guardian, September 4, 2002).

***

Runaway global warming: loss of the earth’s reflective capacity:
Ice ranges the planet over are melting and at unprecedented rates – permafrost and tundra in the North, polar sea ice and glaciers worldwide. The World Glacier Monitoring Service reports 96% of glaciers surveyed – from the Himalayas to the Andes – are in retreat. In 2002, the massive Larsen B ice shelf1 on the Antarctic peninsula snapped, later fragmenting into icebergs. The following year, the Ward Hunt ice shelf, the largest in the Arctic, ruptured and began to collapse. The boundary of the thousand metre thick Kangerdlugssuaq glacier2 in Greenland is dramatically receding. While the Exit Glacier in Alaska is in rapid decline. In the Antarctic Peninsula, some 13500sq km of ice shelf has vanished in 50 years3. Arctic sea ice4 has thinned by more than 30% in thirty years. And the permafrost thaws as temperatures in Alaska significantly rise5. A natural cooling mechanism, the ice reflects sunlight; but as ice depletes, more solar energy is absorbed, which melts more ice, causing a runaway effect6.

1. Unlike a melting glacier or ice sheet, a melting ice shelf doesn’t lift sea levels because the shelf is already in the sea, but the increase of fresh water in the oceans can disrupt the system of ocean currents. (As ocean temperatures increase, sea levels do rise as a result of thermal expansion.)

6. Mathematical models suggest a rise of less than 2C in global temperatures could trigger irreversible melting of the vast ice sheets over Antarctica and Greenland, which would lead to phenomenal sea level rises. Although scientists have predicted it would take a thousand years for the ice sheets to fully melt, Greenland is already melting around the edges, and at a rate faster than anticipated. Scientists thought Antarctic ice sheets so cold they wouldn’t begin to melt for centuries even with global warming. But there is melting now on the West Antarctic ice sheet and increased movement of ice streams.

***

Runaway global warming: pressures on carbon sinks:
/ The oceans:
The earth’s ability to regulate CO2 build up is in danger of collapse. In the carbon cycle, carbonate ions dissolved in surface water are removed in the shell formation of marine organisms. When the organisms die the shells and the carbon contained fall to the ocean floor. Over time the calcium carbonate shells will end up as sediment and rock. Overburdened as too much CO2 in the atmosphere dissolves, the oceans are becoming more acidic (although they still remain slightly alkaline), endangering the survival of marine life. Atmospheric CO2 dissolving in the oceans produces carbonic acid that “strips out carbonate ions dissolved in surface waters, so there is less available for marine organisms to build calcium carbonate shells and exoskeletons”. Scientists have noted greater shell malformation and the formation of softer shells in tiny marine organisms. Marine organisms have evolved in oceans with a stable ph level of 8.2, which makes them extremely vulnerable to acidic corrosion as the ph level falls. Coral, plankton and shellfish are especially vulnerable. Ever greater CO2 in the atmosphere leads to even more acidic seas, so that less and less carbon is removed as the acidity causes shell organisms to decline. Eventually, you no longer have a carbon cycle, but carbon stagnation.

/ The Amazon rainforest:
The vast Amazon ecosystem also plays a vital role in the carbon cycle and the global climate. The trade winds from Africa drive across the Atlantic and as they flow over the warm tropical waters become laden with moisture, continuing until they reach the Amazon where the aggregate moisture falls as rain. Three quarters of the rainfall is recycled back to the atmosphere by transpiration and evaporation as water is drawn from the soil by the trees and released into the air through the leaves. (Some of this water will be received four months later as rainfall over the corn-belt of the US mid-west). A vast Amazon rainforest is necessary for the convection cycle to continue. Yet satellite images reveal 17% rainforest clearance and the decimation continues at an alarming pace. If we add in selective logging, undetected by the satellite images, estimates approach 30% forest wipeout1. Climatologists predict that if the Amazon forest were to lose more than 40% of its cover, it will tip into a process of irredeemable die back. A smaller forest is unable to sustain the convection process so that the forest receives less rain and begins to dry out. As it dries out, vegetation dies (and the forest becomes susceptible to fires), so that more of the forest disappears, which brings even less rainfall than before. In this way the forest continues to diminish until it’s completely replaced by open savanna. By the process of photosynthesis, the Amazon inhales huge amounts of CO2 and outputs 20% of the earth’s oxygen for us to breathe. If the forest were to go, the vast amount of carbon it has stored would stagnate in the atmosphere.

1. Corporations like US food giant Cargill are turning swathes of land to soya production, while large sectors are flattened to make way for cattle ranches. The soya is exported to Europe for cattle feed, or to China* to fatten pigs, poultry and fish. These profit ventures eliminate 20 000sq km every year, an area roughly the size of Belgium. Moreover scientists now estimate that selective logging, undetected by the satellite images, “where timber companies go into the forest under the canopy and take out valuable hard timber,” accounts for an additional 15 500sq km of forest chopped down each year. If this figure is consistent, instead of 17%, we now have nearer 30% forest wipeout.

*Case Study of China:
Self sufficient in food as little as 15 years ago, China is now dependent on bulk food imports. To contend with a loss of arable land as industrialisation proceeds and feed a burgeoning urban population, China is importing soya from Brazil extending the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. The ensuing increase in carbon emissions and loss of arable land combined, coupled with the added deforestation of the Amazon rainforest (to contend with lost food production) is a global warming juggernaut, which will significantly worsen drought and desertification in China’s northern provinces. A greater loss of arable land in China will exacerbate the demand for imported soya with increased deforestation of the Amazon and further global warming the result.

/ Forests, mangrove and coral:
At similar rates complex rainforests are dwindling worldwide from Rwanda to Indonesia. And there are pressures on all the carbon sinks. Mangroves are being destroyed to make way for prawn farms. Soaring temperatures are bleaching the coral reefs1 in the south. The heatwave of 1998 killed more than 90% of corals on shallow Indian Ocean reefs. While in the north, cold water coral are destroyed by fishing trawlers that dredge the seas for bottom fish, turning the living sea to a sub-marine desert. With the warmer summers, tinder dry forests from Nicaragua to Portugal are readily combusting, releasing more carbon into the atmosphere as they burn. In 2003, 22m hectares of Siberian forest 1 was ravaged by fire. In the heatwave and severe drought that year plant growth in Europe dropped by 30% overall, while much of the carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere in the preceding four years was returned to the air. Of equal concern is the degradation of topsoil. Researchers at Cranfield University examined 6 000 topsoil samples covering 25 years and discovered that the soils of England and Wales were returning carbon to the atmosphere at the rate of 4m tonnes a year.

1. The great boreal forests of Siberia, the largest in the world, have suffered a tenfold increase in fires in the last 20 years. Global warming is clearly a factor. In the heatwave of 2003, 22m hectares of forest were “enflamed, charred or scorched.” But it seems fires are also started deliberately. Timber merchants and logging companies can obtain cheap licenses to log areas of forest ravaged by fire. Regardless of the cause, the consequence is more carbon released to the atmosphere.

The conclusion seems clear: carbon sinks have a limited capacity to take up excess co2. And the pressures of intensive human activity, from destruction of mangroves to deforestation reduce that capacity further. The cyclical flow of carbon distributes the carbon between source (carbon released to the atmosphere) and sinks (carbon stored in the earth and oceans), which keeps the climate habitable. If we seriously perturb the carbon cycle by continuing to pump carbon into the atmosphere, sufficient to spur a runaway effect in the interaction of atmospheric carbon and global warming, the planet will become uninhabitable.

***
.

Runaway global warming: loss of cloud cover:
It seems parts of the tropics are less cloudy than they were in the 1980’s. A possibility is that increasing temperatures burn off the clouds. If the findings by NASA are corroborated then global warming will reduce the earth’s cloud cover, allowing in more sunlight, further increasing temperatures.

***

Runaway global warming: release of carbon dioxide from the peat bogs:
Rising levels of carbon dioxide appear to be breaking down the world’s carbon peat bogs, which releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hastens the process. As George Monbiot explained: “Research by Chris Freeman at the University of Bangor shows that the gas (CO2) stimulates bacteria which dissolves the peat. Peat bogs are more or less solid carbon. When they go into solution the carbon turns into carbon dioxide, which in turn dissolves more peat.” The Northern peat bogs hold “the equivalent of 70 years of global industrial carbon emissions.” With fossil fuel emissions continuing to rise and carbon sinks faltering, the breakdown of the peat bogs and CO2 release will only speed up. This will add to the already accelerating CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and more rapid global warming.

***

Runaway global warming: release of methane as permafrost melts:
The world’s largest frozen peat bog is melting. Extending a million square kilometres across Western Siberia, as the permafrost thaws billions of tonnes of methane, a potent greenhouse gas sunk in the frozen Siberian bog, will rise into the atmosphere. Methane is trapped within the permafrost and the deeper strata below in ice like structures known as clathrates. Scientists estimate the Siberian bog contains 70 billion tonnes of methane, which is a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than CO2.

***

Kyoto: Carbon trading and offsetting carbon emissions:
It’s a mockery of rational thinking to propose we can offset CO2 emissions by planting monoculture trees1, when at the same time we’re devastating complex ecosystems like rainforest, mangrove and coral reef. Similarly a Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme is senseless if we still end up burning all the fossil fuel reserves. The Carbon Trading scheme may (and possibly won’t) reduce the annual rate of emissions, but unless the reduction is significant and continues to drastically fall until emissions are brought hurriedly to a halt, it will do little to prevent runaway global warming. UK emissions have gone up year on year since Blair and New Labour came to govern in 1997. And companies that are the worst culprits can set their emission quotas so high that they could find themselves in carbon credit and make a profit from trading their surplus allowance without reducing their emissions at all.

1. As Carbon Trade Watch reveal it is impossible to guarantee that offset projects lead to genuine reductions in carbon dioxide. There is no way to accurately measure the carbon ‘sink’ performance of offset projects. Almost certainly there is overestimation of the ‘sink’ performance of monoculture trees. For who is to say that the ecosystems (grasslands etc) they replace wouldn’t have performed equally as well or better. Anyway, over the longer term the trees may actually release the carbon they’ve previously stored. In some cases monoculture tree plantations may actually be doing more harm than good. According to Carbon Trade Watch, “Monoculture trees… planted on carbon-rich peat bogs – (are) emitting more carbon dioxide than they ‘sink’.”

***

Cataclysmic scenario: release of methane hydrates from the ocean bed:
If the planet heats up by 6C, it will trigger a cataclysmic event that will make extinct the human species1. Methane hydrates, concentrated methane gas locked solid by ice crystals (clathrates) in the seabed, will be released as sea temperatures rise. Experiments show it only takes a 5-6C increase in temperature to unlock the methane. A small amount of methane hydrate expels a large amount of gas. And there are great reservoirs of methane hydrates all along the coastal regions, where dead organic matter has accumulated, the equivalent of 20 times the known reserves of natural gas. A greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than CO2, methane in the atmosphere will precipitate ever greater warming. If the methane oxidises and dissolves as CO2, it will poison the oceans completely.

We know this has happened before in the earth’s biography. There’s a fair amount of certainty about the events that led to the Permian extinction. First the Siberian traps2 (volcanic eruptions) released CO2 into the atmosphere causing a greenhouse effect. As the temperature increased, there were gradual extinctions. When the seas warmed sufficiently, the ice crystals locking methane gas solid in the seabed thawed, unleashing enormous quantities of gas into the oceans3. This killed most of the marine life and led to further global warming, raising temperatures another 5C, which did for most of the life on land4.

1. Scientists predict another 2C temperature rise will make runaway global warming unstoppable. The threshold may be lower than is commonly recognised. If we continue burning fossil fuels at high levels for much longer a 2C rise surely becomes inevitable. Remember the effects of CO2 are on a 30 year time lag and CO2 levels are accelerating. Ice ranges are melting at an alarming rate. If the peat bogs go, that’s it. Much of the evidence indicates: we may be on the brink now.

4. It took 40 000 years for the initial greenhouse phase to lift the temperatures by around 5C. Another 10 000 years, for the marine extinction phase and a final 30 000 years for the second land extinction phase as the temperatures soared another 5C. In total 80 000 years elapsed as the temperatures rose by 10C and killed 90-95% of life on earth. These time scales shouldn’t lead to complacency. On the contrary, temperature rises that spanned 80 000 years in the Permian, could be induced by us in 150 years (counting from 1945), driven by the round the clock burning of fossil fuels on a global scale. Our extinction phase will release the same stores of carbon as the Permian plus the fossil fuel emissions and in a much shorter time frame. It could stagnate forever the carbon cycle and bring an end to life on earth.

***

Summary:

Increased CO2 and greenhouse warming:
• CO2 absorbs radiation in the atmosphere, heating up the planet
• Build up of CO2 in the atmosphere is accelerating
• Fossil fuel emissions continue apace and unabated
• There are signs the carbon sinks are faltering.
• The carbon peat bogs are beginning to dissolve, which will release large amounts of CO2

Loss of cooling capacity:
• As pollution is tackled, more sunlight will penetrate to the earth and speed up warming
• The loss of reflective cover as ice ranges melt will spur increased warming
• The loss of cloud cover as rising temperatures burn off the clouds allows more sunlight through, adding further heat to the earth.

Is the interaction of these systems enough to lift temperatures by 6C? If the answer is yes, the ice crystals that lock in superconcentrated methane gas will thaw and it is the end for the human species. The planet Venus has a CO2 concentrated atmosphere with average surface temperatures of 470C. Here between the transits of Venus will humanity awaken in time to the threat and make the transition necessary turning from the edge of the abyss and towards enlightenment. What is at stake is our survival as a species.

Original version first published September 2005 on www.taysidethink.net

***

“The fact that there is no need for people to die of starvation and there are people dying of starvation is a fact of some importance you would think.”
Antonio Gramsci, Italian dissident

“The one and only social responsibility of business is to make profits”.
Milton Friedman, free market economist

Full of economic jargon, charts and statistics – Intended I suspect to mystify rather than inform – the substance of the ASI’s report was: that by distorting market value, the good intentions of Fairtrade would indirectly bring about increased poverty and unemployment for the poor coffee farmers they intended to benefit. The subtext of the ASI’s report was that Fairtrade should stop meddling in processes it doesn’t understand. The sine qua non: consumers should return to the more established (and nefariously traded) brands.

So ASI considers all the market manipulation by the greedy bastards as the workings of the invisible hand, but to pay developing world producers a fair price and for consumers to act ethically by choosing the fairly traded product is anathema. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out there is something wrong with a logic that promotes greed and exploitation as a market ‘reality’ but acting ethically as a market distortion.

The simple truth is: applying the free market economist’s own criteria, if the demand is there for ethically sourced coffee and can be supplied at prices consumers are willing to pay then that is the most fundamental market ‘reality’, *the law of supply and demand. It is then up to the providers to respond to this ‘reality’ – not dictate to consumers what brands they should or should not buy.

*Of course in practice, supply does not follow demand as straightforward cause and effect, as some political economy theorists would have us believe. Clearly a ‘demand’ has always existed for Fairtrade, which wasn’t being supplied by the monopolies that controlled not only supply of the product but supply of knowledge about the product. Fairtrade has not only offered the possibility of more ethical shopping, but has raised awareness and thus the level of ‘demand’. Control of supply then can constrain demand. Moreover, any demand can be influenced and seemingly over-determined by the social and economic structures that circumscribe our lives, structures that are often developed and reinforced by those who have power and control over supply. However, that said, it’s up to us as responsible human beings to make the effort as far as we are able to become more knowledgeable so that we can ‘demand’ a better world.

This is the glaring paradox of the ASI position. Supposedly avowed advocates of consumer-led demand and *free market response, they are trying to undermine Fairtrade by dictating what consumers should choose, and of all things, citing adverse effects of consumer choice on the market!

*Free trade is an anomalous concept unless what is meant is a gift economy, otherwise all trade is a negotiation circumscribed by relations of power. In practice then free trade is meaningless. There is simply the struggle for a fair deal up against the power of rich elites and their desire to make as much profit unimpeded. Those who acclaim free trade like ASI wish to restrain the struggle for a just deal while preventing all restraints on their profit engineering. Here, ASI and Iain Whyte even wish to restrict consumer free will and outlaw the possibility of ethical behaviour.

Putatively they are suddenly concerned about the ramifications of consumer choice – ramifications transcending the actual transaction between source grower, factory worker, provider, shop assistant and consumer – on the livelihood and welfare of another poor farmer somewhere else in the global economic system. Really! ASI is asking the consumer to comprehend the effects of their purchases on each and every aspect of the global economic order – something no economist can do.

The ASI pseudo-ethical argument against Fairtrade not only conflates the ethics of individual action with accepting responsibility for the *free response and actions of others and the consequences that follow, but with capitulation to an ideology, the so-called free-market paradigm.

*Of course, ethical engagement demands the individual neither favour the malign actions of others, nor hinder the benign. But that is not the same as capitulating your own ethical behaviour because the free response of others to your ethical actions may lead to malign results. And this is the case whether the final outcome, as the market readjusts, is ultimately benign or not. If another’s response is not free then surely what should be condemned is not the ethical behaviour but the conditions and strictures that are constraining or determining the other’s response.

The ethical consumer has responsibility only for those economic transactions they partake of. For any purchase, the ethical consumer’s locus of responsibility is this: that every worker involved in bringing the product purchased from source to shopping basket – the grower, the factory worker, the shop assistant et al – is paid a fair price for their labour. Moreover that she has working conditions that satisfy international standards of human dignity in labour. It is enough for the ethical consumer, in the role of consumer, to focus their responsibility on their own actions and transactions without assuming responsibility for the ideology of the market.

If the present free-market oriented ‘reality’ is over-determined to result in malign poverty for the majority world, regardless of whether consumers choose to act ethically or not, which is what the so-called free traders are claiming, then clearly there is a major flaw in free market ideology and practice.

If the market is failing the majority world, condemning populations of farmers and other workers to enduring poverty as the ASI seem to concede, and if perversely this is significantly worsened by the actions of the ethical consumer as the ASI say they believe, then the rational response from the ASI is not to condemn Fairtrade but to question their own philosophy of free market capitalism and its manifestation in the real world. However, the ideology, institutions and practices of the so-called free market and its failings – clearly transcending the responsibility of the individual consumer and their purchases – is a structural and political matter, requiring a collective response.

For free trade profiteers to challenge Fairtrade on the basis of ethics is not only laughable, but inconsistent with free market principles. The fundamental axiom of free trade philosophy (sophistry) asks that everyone behave in their own self-interest – irrespective of the consequences on others (or on the environment). In other words, free trade ideology is axiomatically the very contradiction of ethical behaviour: the promotion of unrestrained selfishness.

Since the market is no more than the mirror of the cumulative *behaviours of its contributors, the current gross disparities between rich and poor should surprise no one. If, on the other hand, the fundamental axiom of economic philosophy demanded everyone act ethically, that is, if we all took responsibility for the impact of our economic behaviours on others (and on the environment), the market adjustment would reflect this, with positive repercussions for society (and the environment) inevitable. Fairtrade as solely a consumer foundation is in no position to make this demand; it simply offers the possibility of ethical behaviour in the economic sphere.

*of course, economic behaviour includes the deliberate development and associated over-determined evolution of institutions, financial structures, political influence/control, binding legal frameworks and regulatory/deregulatory functions, and corresponding institutional practices and determinants – which in a system that promotes unrestrained selfishness will always evolve to serve the interests of powerful elites. An evolved structural context may (or may not) influence or constrain subsequent behaviours, or may simply favour some behaviours over certain others. It is clear the present system of incentives that rewards unrestrained selfishness in a ruthlessly ‘competitive’ society without accountability for or strict regulation against detrimental social/ecological impacts favours the most corrupt and malign practices. From a selfish impulse such a system of incentives is constructed. Only from the will to selfless action can the conditions evolve for ethical behaviour and natural justice to flourish. The consummately enlightened and just society will offer its resources to the most deprived in society, in perpetuum. Not trickle down, but raising up.

In contradistinction to ASI, there is no contradiction in Fairtrade’s position. Firstly, Fairtrade as a consumer led movement is justified in demanding and promoting ethically sourced products. Supposedly, the consumer is king. Secondly, unlike ASI who are promoting a political ideology, the so-called free market mechanism and all its real world manifestations, Fairtrade simply permits an ethical perspective. By providing information and outlets for fairly traded goods, they offer the possibility for consumers to shop ethically if they so choose.

With remarkable chutzpah, Iain Whyte calls Fairtrade goods “politically motivated goods.” How can goods be politically motivated? Fairtrade simply offers the consumer another choice in the market, one that allows consumers the right to act decently towards their fellow human beings. What does count as politically motivated is the attempt to deny consumers this choice.

Iain Whyte further promulgates the myth that the promotion of Fairtrade will hit consumption. His reasoning: Fairtrade stigmatises other coffee producers as unfair and the “negative marketing could hit consumption and demand.” But they can only be stigmatised and boycotted by those who want to drink coffee that is fair. A consumer transformed ethically aware doesn’t drink any less coffee than before, they merely stipulate that they want Fairtrade. The market will re-adjust to reflect the new behaviour.

Thus, if the unfair producers don’t wish to lose this share of the market, then they need only supply a Fairtrade alternative. If Fairtrade can supply coffee ethically traded, farmers receiving a just price for their commodity, at competitive prices for the consumer, then the big monopolies with a much greater market share can certainly accommodate the same.

It’s revealing that none of the monopolies have supplied a Fairtrade alternative despite the clear demand from consumers. Instead their response is to conduct a subtle media campaign which attempts to discredit Fairtrade in the hope of undermining consumer confidence in the label. This is not a standard attempt to influence consumer choice through advertising their own product, but propaganda to constrain the consumer to an ideology.

In a startling example of doublethink, Iain Whyte labels Fairtrade a restrictive practice. But Fairtrade is the expansion of consumer choice. However, what is restrictive is the determination of large monopolies (and their spokespeople) to control what comes on the market in order to protect their outrageous profits.

For Iain Whyte’s enlightenment: in the supply/demand chain, consumer demand that is restrictive is simply known as consumer choice. Choice can be restricted however, by restrictive practices at the supply end of the chain: e.g. unreciprocated market access, monopolisation, mergers and acquisitions, non-competitive payments, kickbacks for contracts, homogeneity of product, corporate political might, lock-in of infrastructure, price-fixing cartels. Protections like subsidies and tarrifs are only restrictive when they are applied unevenly and thus unjustly. To deny nascent businesses in the developing world the same protections that prospered the mature monopolies and leavened growth in the developed world is perhaps the most entrenched restrictive practice of all. It comes as no surprise that the current situation is the reverse of natural justice: it is the richest countries that continue to enjoy the benefits of subsidies and tariffs to the detriment of the poorest.

Iain Whyte admits the hardship caused by the present system as growers are undercut and put out of business. In the present system this is disastrous for the poor grower. However if we had ubiquitous Fairtrade they could at least switch their production or shift their employment to another Fairtrade product so that they are no longer locked into a nexus of desperation and poverty.

Iain Whyte keeps up the pretence that “all participants in the market enter into the bargain willingly.” which shows his argument is really directed at the simple-minded. How can someone desperate, poor and unemployed who has nothing to trade but their labour in a saturated cheap labour market enter into a bargain willingly? When you have nothing and you’re offered peanuts, the outcome is already determined. Similarly self-interest that is basic survival cannot be equated with the selfish interest of gross profits. Greed that takes advantage of desperate necessity for increased profit is nothing other than exploitation and not “a bargain entered into willingly.”

It is all very well to “drive down costs,” but when the results are gross profits for the elite while the majority world suffer wretched poverty and the environment heads towards irrecoverable degradation, “the economic benefits” are outweighed by the unnecessary plight of the majority and the manifest threat to the systems of life on earth.

Simply stated, the corporate imperative is to maximise profit. The ideal is to socialise (externalisation in the jargon) as much of the cost as possible, which includes avoiding all liability for detrimental impacts on society and the environment. Cheap labour is just one more example of private profit at public expense.

Martin Vander Weyer writing on fair trade (New Statesman 28 Feb 2005), lends his support to claims that exploitative labour practices by Western factories in the developing world are *justified because the alternative is worse – dependency, prostitution, begging and, at best, farm labouring. He quotes Martin Wolf: “Taking a stance against this kind of trade development is mere tokenism. To be upset over poverty is entirely justifiable; to block a route out of it, in response, is not.” The ‘conscience of New Labour’, Claire Short, also employed this spurious argument when, as DFID secretary, she inveighed against campaigners who urged boycotts of sweatshop products (The Observer 10 Dec 2000), again citing begging and prostitution as the only alternatives to exploitative factory labour. But what these advocates of exploitative globalisation daren’t challenge is why that should be the choice at all. If factories in developing countries were legally bound to meet International standards for human dignity in labour, we could precipitate the route out of poverty. And with large profits being had by the multinationals and monopolies in developing countries, they can certainly afford to increase wages, improve working conditions, and provide adequate training and education.

*It would seem a remarkable conjuring trick that this argument was unassailable among the political elite in the 1990’s and was bought wholesale by New Labour, since it amounts to the statement that the exploitation of the poorest is for their own good. But perhaps it’s not so remakable after all.

***

Original version first published March 2005 on the Fairtrade email network