Author:

Back in November 2k6, I wrote my “Now we have won” post saying that the public landscape of ideas has changed, and that the Iraq war is now seen as an endless failure, and anthropogenic climate change is accepted as happening. (There were some stoushy comments that led to a followup “No, seriously!” post.)
That post was when i thought we’d hit tipping point. Some might say I was too early or too late, but it seems impossible to deny that we’ve tipped somewhere along the line.
The example that got me today was featured in the DomPost, sourced from the Washington Post – an article about climate change sceptics that gives them all the credibility of the Keystone Kops:

While the IPCC enlisted several hundred scientists from more than 100 countries to work over five years to produce its series of reports, the NIPCC document is the work of 23 authors from 15 nations, some of them not scientists.

or even:

Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, said he was not surprised that roughly 500 participants had gathered at the meeting. “I’m sure that the flat Earth society had a few final meetings before they broke up.”

This article simply wouldn’t have been printable a couple years ago. Thank heavens we’re over that nonsense.
(The DomPost version takes note of the fact that some of NZ’s own Clown Skeptics, Vincent Gray among them, made the pilgrimage.)

This one’s been sitting in my bookmarks for a while, waiting for me to get around to blogging it. It’s worth waiting for. It isn’t often I read something that really shakes me, and this more than fit the bill.
Back on 19 feb, George Monbiot wrote about how costs are balanced in environmental accounting. His starting point was the crucial Stern Report, a document that joined with the IPCC findings to finally tip the balance on whether action is needed to stem climate change:

Sir Nicholas Stern… showed that stopping runaway climate change would cost less than failing to prevent it. But… few people bothered to find out how he had achieved this result. It took me a while, but by the time I reached the end [of his report] I was horrified.

Monbiot identifies problems with the way Stern measures the costs of climate change. All kinds of destruction, disruption, displacement and death are turned into a money figure: they are considered as “a reduction in consumption” equivalent to $30 per tonne of carbon.
Suddenly, as Monbiot observes, you are able to weigh up the cost of environmental destruction and human life as entries on a balance sheet. Sure enough, the UK govt’s argument to expand Heathrow airport follows this precedent. As Monbiot summarises:

The government claims that building a third runway will reduce delays, on average, by three minutes. This saving is costed at €38-49 per passenger per hour. The price is a function of the average net wages of travellers: the more you earn, the more the delays are deemed to cost you, even if you are on holiday.

This is the sort of logic that sits behind much public decisionmaking. On the one hand, Stern conscientiously evaluates human misery and death as a component of ‘reduction in consumption’; on the other hand, a City Executive whose plane is delayed is deemed to have its own social cost.
I should say, I don’t have a problem with the methodology in principle. Unlike Monbiot, weighing up human life in dollar terms doesn’t shock me; health funders and automobile manufacturers have to do the same thing all the time. What shocks me is the way in which these prices are set. The most cautious figures are used to call the devastation of our planetary ecosystem a ‘reduction in consumption’ – but somehow the most generous assessments are given to the cost to society of an exec stuck waiting for his plane another hour. And perhaps that’s enough to sink this methodology. The translation of non-monetary values into financial ones will always be so tentative and subjective and responsive to the biases of those performing the translation that the most hideous results are inevitable. And on this basis, the decisions are made that determine whether our planet is trapped into a horrible future. (Or for a Dubtown parallel – the decision to press ahead on the Wellington Bypass surely owed a lot to exactly this kind of accounting.)
Go read the article. Monbiot is always incredible, and this is a superb example of his writing at its pithy, excellent best. I was lucky enough to see him talking at the G8 in July ’05, and he’s going to be videocasting a talk to Wellington this Saturday morning for Writers and Readers Week. Perhaps my favourite Monbiot article of all time is Fallen Fruit, about why apples in the UK aren’t as nice as they used to be. (That one was even better with the photos.)

I haven’t been blogging much on the middle east lately, but I’ve been following the news threads as solidly as ever. The latest violence in Gaza is worrying. Only a week ago it was a peaceful protest against an economic blockade; now there’s been escalation and invasion, and civilians are dying. This is all the more concerning because it is out of step with what ordinary Israelis want, according to this Haaretz account that says most Israelis support ceasefire talks with Hamas.
If this concerns you as well, here’s something you can do right now: sign the Avaaz petition.
Out of all the organisations I’ve seen trying to turn online presence into real-world influence, Avaaz is easily the strongest and most successful. They essential work through online word-of-mouth, like this, to push very targetted issue-specific petitions. Their first big one was to the 2007 G8 about global warming, and since then they’ve kept an eye on numerous human rights and climate change issues. They do good work and are the best channel I’m aware of for turning your concern at your computer screen into something that key decisionmakers will actually see.
At the petition page you can see how many have signed, as the bar creeps toward their target. The petition will be delivered to the Israeli government and to Hamas to call for an immediate ceasefire. It’s something.