Denial

Here’s Donny on hairspray.

Well, yes CFCs can affect the ozone layer. Gas can leave his apartment, or he would suffocate. It then circulates through the atmosphere and catalyses a reaction, breaking down the O3, causing a 4% reduction worldwide since the 1970s as well as the holes at the poles. That lets solar UV light reach the surface of the planet, causing skin cancer, cataracts, and damage to crops. The gases we used to replace CFCs mitigate the effect.

Reducing CO2 is complex, but replacing CFCs with HFCs was comparatively simple. The treaties are old, and more or less observed. So why deny that reasonable precautions are necessary? Because if you feel you have enough problems, you focus on the most pressing. If someone tells you you can’t use spray cans any more, and you can’t think of an alternative, they are loading more problems on you, and you don’t want to deal with that one. So you say, that does not make sense to me. And they explain catalysis and you don’t want to listen. How reassuring to be told that you don’t have to, that your own instincts- my deodorant can’t damage the atmosphere- are sound.

Donald gives false hope. He reassures. Those people telling you what to do, they’re fools, right? You don’t want to listen to them? You don’t need to! Go with your gut instincts, and don’t let experts tell you what to do!

Saving the planet is a group activity. Countries need to work together. People need to do more, to stop buying certain things, to sort their rubbish out. If you can’t afford petrol, you don’t want to be told that the price needs to go up to reduce CO2.

Warming the planet in thirty or seventy years is overwhelming and distant at the same time. There needs to be group action for the good of all. But the Right does not like group action, it wants everyone to work for themselves, and the market to make wealth gush up to the wealthy- to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance. So oil companies will continue to profit from extraction of hydrocarbons. And voters go along with this. It feels like freedom. Very little benefit comes from one person recycling their milk cartons anyway.

As for me, I like to work on one problem at a time, and if others tell me I should be working on something else, I resent it. Denial is comforting. If a problem is too great, well, maybe it will never happen. We go on as before. If a problem is insoluble, well, I’ve got to die of something.

Working together is ennobling and empowering. In Britain we have great love for the NHS, the symbol of our society working together for the good of all, and the extreme Right used that to get us to vote for them, against immigration, even as they tear it down.

Why do towns flood?

Towns downstream flood because water runs off the land upstream, rather than draining naturally into aquifers. Because of the lack of water in aquifers, water use must be restricted when there is low rainfall, even low rainfall within normal ranges. The problem is compaction of soil upstream, which could be ameliorated by restoring trees: rain passes down their roots into the soil below. When rivers are dredged, removing their habitat for wildlife, water flows more quickly: all the rain reaches the town at once, overwhelming the expensive flood barriers built on the riverbanks downstream. And that fast flowing water moves silt: dredging causes the need for more dredging. The answer is to allow rivers to meander and braid, holding the water back, filtering it and releasing it slowly.

I get all this from George Monbiot, in two Guardian articles, one more political, one in depth. Do read that second article, it explains the issues beautifully. The farmers of Pontbren, where the Severn rises, planted trees, to provide shelter and bedding for their hill-pastured sheep. One of the research papers estimates that – even though only 5% of the Pontbren land has been reforested – if all the farmers in the catchment did the same thing, flooding peaks downstream would be reduced by about 29%. Full reforestation would reduce the peaks by about 50%. For the residents of Shrewsbury, Gloucester and the other towns ravaged by endless Severn floods, that means – more or less – problem solved.

Monbiot explains that the Common Agricultural Policy is to blame: the Single Farm Payment, which pays the same for poor hillside pasture as for lowland pasture, will not be paid where there is “unwanted vegetation”. Farmers are paid to remove the trees which would prevent the flooding.

Monbiot quotes some of the ripostes. Rory Stewart, Conservative MP and now an Environment minister, attacked the National Trust because it “allows water to ruin the lowland pastures of small tenant farms, apparently on the advice of the Environment Agency”. Monbiot links Stewart’s article on the Green Alliance Blog. Small farms matter as a link to our traditional culture says Stewart, decrying rationalist “Whiggery” concerned with profit not people. Stewart supports the tradition of the legacy of more than a thousand years of small cultivation and also blames the CAP, which he says drives out small farmers. Land becomes either an industrial factory for the production of the maximum food at the cheapest price, or a national park almost devoid of human cultivation. His answer is to demand something impossible: that national parks should clarify not in the abstract but, specifically, valley by valley, what landscape they are seeking to create.

I am not rationalist. I am seduced by Stewart’s Yeats quote against whiggery: that levelling, rancorous, rational sort of mind that never looked out of the eye of saint or out of a drunkard’s eye. Yet I favour a collectivist response, balancing the interests of town dwellers downstream against those of farmers, small and large. It would reduce the need for public spending, £3.2bn, £500m more than in the last parliament, on flood defences downstream, which are failing.

Raphael, Holy Family with a lamb

Cui bono?

At the tender age of twelve, I was a Thatcherite.

Is fracking for shale gas dangerous? The Spectator says not.

Fracking is not a pretty process: it involves drilling a large well and then pumping large quantities of water and sand down it in order to fracture the appropriate strata of rock. Once the rock is fractured, gas can seep into the well and be forced to the surface. But it isn’t anything like as hazardous as environmentalists — in a repeat of the fantasy and exaggeration which characterised the campaign against GM foods a decade ago — like to claim.

What about cost?

kilo­watt for kilowatt, energy generated from shale gas emits only half as much carbon as coal — the energy source which it is already beginning to replace in many American states. It is estimated that $4 spent on shale delivers the same energy as $25 spent on oil

So why do environmentalists oppose it? Because they are hysterical liars and puritans who want everyone to suffer:

The energy-scarce world of their dreams has been put off for a couple of centuries at least; instead we are staring at a future of potential energy abundance.

OK. Turn to Potomac Upstream, a blog I rather like. Here I find fracking described as the end of our World. So I asked her for sources, and she referred me to Salon. What do they say about the dangers?

In every fracking state but New York, where a moratorium against the process has been in effect since 2010, the gas industry has contaminated ground water, sickened people, poisoned livestock and killed wildlife.

And on cost of production, it refers to Wikipedia, which, citing the New York Times, states:

The degree to which production is economically viable remains uncertain as only high prices resulting from high demand can support the increased cost of production

What particularly irks me about this is the statements of fact. I have a degree, and the ability to understand complex concepts, even research them a little, but my specialism is restricted, and I cannot find for myself what is the cost or carbon footprint of fracking. These two sources tell me opposed things. Even if there are statistics which each can rely on, one at least is not telling the whole truth.

I love the Spectator’s slogan “Don’t think alike”. However, it seems to be strongly in favour of regimented thinking. At the tender age of 12, in a strongly Tory household, I was a Thatcherite, and reading the Spectator recently has caused my final break with the Conservative party. I could not bring myself to vote for my current MP.

I want to read to know about the World, not to reinforce my current prejudices, or get an emotional kick from anger at lying environmentalists or lying corporations. People need jobs. I get that. And NIMBY is not a good argument, so people may pretend to more general environmental concerns. But when I ask Who benefits? I think the corporations have a greater interest in distorting truth than the campaigners. I dislike not knowing, but need to admit when I actually do not know.