Letter to the Editor,  not published in the Sunday Times,  1st December 2019

It is encouraging to hear that, following his experiences in a dried-up river in south-east

Asia, Jeremy Clarkson is now taking a more sympathetic view of environmentalism.

However before  embracing current climate dogmas he might ask some questions:  has

anything similar happened in the last 100 or 150 years (before atmospheric carbon dioxide

reached present levels ) and what do local experts regard as the cause of the present

problems in the river?  I have tried to elucidate the issues in a general way in a report

recently published by Farsight Research, called "Global warming re-examined", and will

send him a complimentary copy.

I believe that the climate debate as currently carried on obscures the two most

important environmental problems:  the long, slow, relentless battle between civilisation

and the motor car;  and population growth, mainly from immigration, leading to endless

demands for more housing.

CLIMATE CHANGE VERSUS LANDSCAPE LOSS-  THE U.N. REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY

                                                               It seems only a summary has so far been published, but the
recent UN report on biodiversity-  one million animal and plant species threatened with
extinction-  seems to show a marked shift of emphasis on causation,  away from climate change to landscape use,  a theme which I have been propagating for more years than I  care to remember. It also seems to be weak on priorities and practicalities.
                                                               A bar diagram published in the "i" newspaper- so far
as I know, not anywhere else-  on May 7th shows the key drivers of biodiversity loss for four
groups-  birds; reptiles and amphibians; mammals; and fish.  Threats to biodiversity are listed
as habitat degradation; pollution; exploitation; invasive species and disease; and climate
change.  In all four groups of species the climate change contribution is small- from visual
inspection (why is the media so keen to publish graphics rather than figures?)  it seems to be
about 10 per cent for fish, 5 per cent for mammals, 8 or 9 per cent for reptiles and amphibians,
and 15 per cent for birds.  Plants are not shown.  Habitat degradation is given as around 50 per
cent for birds and "reptiles and amphibians", around 45 per cent for mammals and 27 per cent
for fish, but three and possibly all four of the other causes listed could be included in landscape
degradation.  When  it is recognised that landscape change is itself an important cause of climate
change, through albedo, it is obvious that nearly all attention must be focused on it.  (In addition
the prevailing  doctrine that climate change is caused mainly by CO2 most be strongly challenged, as I do in a Farsight Research report  Climate change:  reclaiming a lost science, to be published
in July, but  this is a separate question).
                                                               If landscape loss is overwhelmingly the main issue, what
is to be done?
                                                               Stemming population growth, obviously.  In developing
countries, this means reducing the birth rate.  In developed countries, it means reducing immigration.
But in addition governments must embrace controls over the location of population of a scope and
stringency so far not contemplated anywhere, though the UK in 1945-1973 had something like
what was needed- industrial development certificates were used to steer industry away from
London and South-East England, as well as the Midlands, to other parts of the country. The
rationale was macro-economic-  reducing pressure on the labour market and hence inflation,
plus the social aim of reducing unemployment- rather than environmental.  It is clear that
National Parks, Green Belts, protected areas etc. are not sufficient.  The government must
specify  the areas where development is to be allowed, and ban or restrict it in other areas.
The location of economic activities which require large areas of land and are for this and other
(public finance) reasons inevitably under government control- such as airports, ports,
universities- can be used as levers for influencing the location of employment and population.
Of the demands on land use which are directly subject to government control and where there
is scope for reducing the demand, top of the list must be the private car, especially when used
for commuting, where it is idle but occupying space for much of the day).  In addition there
is the host of other reasons- encouraging walking, now seen as more efficacious than medicines
in treating a variety of ailments, road accidents and air pollution.  There is no such thing as
an eco-friendly private car.
                                                       The growth of air travel is correctly seem as a major issue.
I saw some time ago a figure- now probably out of date-  that only 5 per cent of the world*s
population had ever been in an aeroplane.  What will it be like when this figure grows to
20, 30 or 50 per cent?  We can do a lot to encourage long-distance rail travel-  how about
a  Casablanca to Cairo railway, with links to Europe through tunnels near Gibraltar and the
Bosphorus- but it could hardly compete with holiday air travel unless the journey itself could
be made part of the holiday.  But in the meantime we can enforce the most drastic restrictions
on airport car parking, with the incidental benefit of inducing people to cut down the
amount of luggage they take on holiday.
                                                       I am doubtful about the emphasis on beef production as
a land use which could be reduced, as also on the vegetarian case for reducing meat production-
what would the English landscape look like if it was all East Anglia-type cereals and
vegetable prairie fields-  but this need some more detailed investigation at a later time.


                                                                 
t 

JOBS FOR THE BOYS-  AND THE OCCASIONAL GIRL     DEVOLUTION,
SEPARATISM AND THE SELF-INTEREST OF THE POLITICAL CLASS

One of the most interesting developments in social science in recent decades has been
"public choice theory", stemming from books by Anthony Downs and Mancur Olsen
in the late 1950s and a book "The Calculus of Consent" by James M. Buchanan and
Gordon Tullock.  Buchanan was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics in 1986 for
his work in this field.  In simple terms the gist of the theory is that elected politicians
are motivated at least partly by self-interest and this may diverge from the interests
of the population which elected them- in other words, that the idea of individuals maximising
income and profit which underlies economic theory (notwithstanding the most recent
Nobel Prize-winner) applies also in the political sphere. Probably one reason the theory has
not had the attention it deserves is the name, which seems rather misleading since the
point is that the public in many cases does not have a choice.
An important way in which the theory might have been developed, but has not been, is in
regard to the proliferation of political entities and the consequent increase in the number
of jobs available to politicians and their associates (or, if one wanted to be insulting,
their hangers-on).  The latter includes not only their employees but workers in the
local media  (elections always give a boost to newspaper circulation and TV
viewing), researchers, and beneficiaries of the patronage, e.g. job-creation
schemes, which usually come with the creating of a new political organisation.
(An even more far-reaching but controversial extension might be wars-
is it possible that some wars were in the interests of the ruling elite but not of the
mass of the population?)
Advocates of devolution  (one of the main expressions in Britain is the endless pressure
for creating city Mayors) say that money will be better spent if decisions on how to
spend it are made locally.  So far as I know no serious attempt has been made to test
this claim- it is of course always possible to point to cases where public spending has
brought benefits (as well as some where it has done harm) but tests of whether devolution
of spending has improved its efficiency are lacking. Wider fiscal autonomy is not usually
proposed- devolution advocates assume that the city or region will get the same, or even
more, money from central government.  Pressure for devolution usually comes from 
 regions that are poorer than the national average.
There are a few cases where the pressure is from richer regions.  This is currently the case
with Catalonia and the North of Italy. Even in such cases the extra costs of creating a
new tier of government need to be taken into account.  Close study of this process where
devolution or separatism has been implemented would be very valuable. For example, if
if is possible to disregard the (important) non-fiscal aspects, what has been the cost of the
dissolution of the former Yugoslavia into separate states, with their own armed forces,
Embassies etc?  I was involved in writing reports on the West Indies in the 1960s when
several states had become independent, and even the cost of maintaining foreign Embassies
and United Nations representation was a significant item in their budgets (some have
since merged).  Separatists should also bear in mind that relative prosperity may change, for
example Scotland*s long-standing claims based on oil revenues have now been well and
truly (and, for practical purposes, permanently) scuttled.

the elderly, the economy and the missing research

THE ELDERLY THE ECONOMY AND THE MISSING RESEARCH


In a new book, "The war against the old", John Sutherland cites criticism of the
elderly*s perks- free TV and bus travel, the winter fuel allowance- and poor
conditions in care homes as evidence of a war against the elderly by the rest
of the population.  The problems caused by the rise in the proportion of old
people in the population have been predictable for a long time.  I dealt with
them in two books published in the late 1970s-  "Governments and
growth" and "Labour supply in economic development".  The solutions have
also been clear. The same medical and social advances which have led
to more elderly people also enable them to go on working longer. The US had
already raised the official retirement age to 69 in the late 1960s.  This does
not mean continuing in the same job at the same pay.  In many cases a
career shift, possibly after a elderly "gap year", is needed. Also, it should be
taken for granted that after leaving a permanent job, the elderly should
try self-employment. The expertise and contacts built up during 40 years of
salaried work, as well as the great advantage that free travel provides in searching
for and holding employment, should give them a considerable competitive
advantage in the labour market.
However a large-scale reorientation of medical and social research is needed.
The aim should be to find out what are the main medical problems which prevent
older people from working- the same ones which prevent them leading an active life.
Probably the most important are walking difficulties, and the main causes of these
are probably arthritis and, for men, catherisation to deal with an enlarged prostate
(which affects 70 per cent of men over 70).  Research and treatment for these
conditions is probably grossly deficient compared with, say, AIDS or breast cancer,
which have well-organised and vocal pressure groups.  Disability charities, notably
Scope, concentrate on trying to get more government money and support, and do not
ask what are the reasons people come to need their services  (Indeed like many
charities they probably regard an expansion of their clientele as desirable.). Why do not
these or some of the big medical charities- the Wellcome Trust and the Francis
Crick Foundation-  initiate some large-scale research, combing medical and social
expertise, on what dissuades the elderly from taking up productive work?  (I am of
course aware that many do voluntary work).
Personally I would be very happy to see the free TV licence go, which would add the
elderly*s voice in pressure to abolish the licence, provided the free travel and the
winter fuel allowance remain (but perhaps the latter could be reduced, at least in
southern England, if we continue getting mild winters?)

WHERE IS THE SOCIAL SCIENCE WHEN IT IS NEEDED?

A glance through the websites of the Economc and Social Research Council and the grant-making
foundations will show a number of projects which would not cause irretrievable loss,
intellectual or material, if they were cancelled. At the same time, there are obvious and
important issues which social scientists have not tackled.  Here are some widely-discussed
issues which it would be feasible for social scientists to make a decisive contribution, but
they have not done so.  In terms of method, one major category is where a number of causal
factors are operative in an important social problem, and where the need is to quantify,
at least roughly, their importance. Quite often it would probably be found that some of the
alleged causes are insignificant and others of decisive importance; the task is to devise
tests and investigations to determine which.
1.  The decline of the high street.- one of the many issues on which the government has
appouinted a "Czar", who has not apparently made any progress in reversing the decline
or disentangling the causal factors.  Three are obvious: the growth of online shopping, the proliferation of charity shops, and the growth of out-of-town shops.  The impact of the
first is obviously in the areas where the internet has made most progress. Probably the
most important are travel agents and books, also clothing, food and a variety of others.
Charity shops have impacted on clothing, hiusehold goods, books and furniture.  (I can
cite charity bookshops and furntiture stores where quality is so good and prices so
low that no commercial venture could compete; obviously the enxt step is to analyse
the causes of charity shops  competitive advantages and see how far they are justifiable).
Out-of-town shopping is closely related to car use and parking charges; there is an urgent need for a comperhensive survey of these charges in out-of-town locations and probably a case for imposing
a parking tax, in view of the land-use requirements.
2.  Regional differences in mortality and morbidity rates.
Poverty is the most usually cited.  Diet, smoking acohol and drug use are also (possibly
more) important and their effects are, at least for the first three, easily quantifiable.
I would add another which I beleive might turn out to be top of the list-  weather. Populations
on the west coast of Britain, including the north-west and western Scotland, get more rain
and less sunshine than other parts of the country, consequently lack vitamin D.  A fairly easy
test of this last factor would be to compare populations in the western half of Brtain with
those in the eastern half, allowing as far as possible for income, diet, etc.
3.  Obesity
The significant thing has obviously been the rise since the 1950s.  Whether this is due
to consumption of particular foods, mainly sugar, or to an increase in total calories
consumption could easily be determined from food consumpio statistics. There is also
the decline in manual work, which has affected men more than women, and in household
work which has had the reverse effect.  The rise in car use at the expense of walking
and cycling msut also be taken into account, and a factor which I would guess is very
important is the rise in awerage household temperatures, from ca. 17 C in the 1950s to an
unhealthy 20 or 21 degrees centigrade.  (It is true that deaths rise in cold weather, but I would
guess that this is due to the effect,e specially on the elderly and infiirm, of being out-of-
doors is cold weather,a nd not as fuel campaigners claim to low indoor temperatures)

STATISTICAL FALLACIES IN THE GLOBAL WARMING DEBATE

Introductory books on statistics usually start by noting some ways in which they can
used to mislead.  A popular textbook possibly still in use was called "How to lie with
statistics",  Three elementary fallacies were usually noted:  the selection of base dates
for a time series;  possible misuse or misunderstanding of averages;  and the
fact that correlation does not imply causation.  All three are widely evident in the
debate about global warming.
(1)  Selective use of base dates:  Long-run series of temperature statistics usually start
about 1850,  However this was towards the end of the Little Ice Age  (in fact, I think
the cold era could be regarded as continuing until about 1900) so that this starting
point shows figures for subsequent years rising more than they would is based on
a presumably "more normal"  one.  Even more importantly, the two or three decades
leading up to 1970 (in some cases, 1976)  were much colder than the preceding five,
so that an annual series starting then shows a much higher rise since. What would be
a "normal" year ro series of years to use as a base date?  The answer is that there
isn t one, and all that can be done is to give the raw figures for as many years as
possible and allow the reader to form a judgement.
                                  The practice, adopted by all sides in the global warming
debate, of giving annual figures as "anomolies"  also presupposes that the base date(s)
are in some sense normal.  Using a fairly long period of time as the base helps to
remedy this; for example the most recent World Bank Development Report, for 2014,
shows (Table 9, p.316)  global temperatures relative to 1951-1980.  This seems at
first sight a fairly fool-proof  procedure, but it includes three probably cold decades and only one warm one, 1970-1980.
                                  The anti-warmists, in arguing that global temperatures have not
risen since about 1997, fall into the same fallacy.  It is fairly universally agreed that
the decade of the 1990s was exceptionally warm  (there were three El Ninos, which
usually come at intervals of up to five years)  and a stable statistical series starting from
a high base date is compatible with a long-run rising trend.  (In any case, it does not seem
to be true that global temperatures have not risen since ca. 1997.  The World Bank
table just quoted shows an anomaly of 0.59 for 2001-2010, compared wirth 0.37 for
1991-2000.)
(2)  The dangers of averages  The elementary statistical textbooks often quote the
example of the non-swimmer told that a river is on average 3 feet deep, walks in and
gets drowned.  The point of course is that an river could be much deeper than three feet
in some parts if it is shallower than that in others.  .Foe many (most) purposes, differences
in temperature-  polar, temperate zones and tropics; day and night;  summer and winter,
ground level and atmosphere (lower and upper)- \are more important in tryng to elucidate
causal relationships than is the global average.  In addition it seems that there is a causal
link between opposing trends in different regions.  This may be more apparent in
rainfall than in temperature trends. For example there seems to be a link between wet
weather caused by El Nino in the Southern Hemisphere and drought in California  (though,
one of many cases where assumptions and prediction are unrelaible, the expected severe
El Nino in 2014 did not materialise, and California is suffering one of its worst droughts
on record).
(3)  Correlation does not imply causation  The textbooks in the 1950s used to quote the
example of the birth rate and the number of storks in Sweden in the 1930s- both were
falling at about the same rate. Many discussions of the link between atmospheric carbon
dioxide and global temperatures consist of little more than a juxtaposition of two
series of statistics, with little attempt to set out the physics, chemistry and meterology
of the presumed link  (this is true for example of Unit 1, "Global Warming", in an
otherwise admirable Open University course "Exploring Science",  S104 and, even more
a very close examination of  alternative  explanations.

anthropogenic.

theuncommittedsocialscientist: the 150-year rise in world temperature