Rob Lyons

Ethan Greenhart's protest song - against humanity

noreply@blogger.com (Robert) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:34:00 +0000

On 8 October, Ethan Greenhart, ethical columnist for online publication spiked, and his Gaia Choir made an impromptu and wildly popular appearance at Ambrosia's Vegan Cafe on the outskirts of Brighton to sing the song that they believe provides the solution to the credit crunch:

'Why Won't The Humans Die Out?' is available to listen to on spiked today:

Ethan sings the Humanity Blues

The song is also available on YouTube

Is it time to say 'au revoir' to Terry Wogan

noreply@blogger.com (Robert) — Tue, 27 May 2008 15:36:00 +0000

We are faced with a period of national crisis. One of Britain's dearest cultural traditions is under threat: Terry Wogan is thinking of quitting his role as the BBC's wry commentator on the Eurovision Song Contest.

Wogan has been commentating on the contest since 1973 and is such an institution in Eurovision that he was namechecked both by the Serbian presenters on Saturday night and in Ireland's failed entry (performed by a puppet called Dustin the Turkey). But on Saturday, 'Our Tel' seemed thoroughly disenchanted. After mentioning the impending retirement of the BBC's Eurovision producer, Kevin Bishop, Wogan sighed: 'He and I have to decide whether we want to do this again. Indeed, Western European participants have to decide whether they want to take part from here on in because their prospects are poor.'

It is unlikely that there is any great conspiracy in Eurovision voting against the big western nations. It's more a case of people with similar backgrounds tending to vote for each other. The biggest problem for the UK has been the quality of our entrants. In recent years, we've had a glut of reality TV losers, including Abraham, and no-marks who've never had a music career at all. No performer with a live career would risk humiliation by competing against many very creditable performers in a singing contest widely viewed as a bit of a joke back home.

Could this refusal to take part have anything to do with the oh-so-ironic TV commentary of a certain Sir Terry Wogan, by any chance? While ridiculing the acts in years gone by was certainly great fun - days when you could rely on a group of Lappland reindeer herders to turn up and give us a tune - those days are long gone.

Russia's winning entry was produced by the top R&B man in the world right now, Timbaland. Terry probably thinks Timbaland is a DIY store. The daft roller skater that Wogan ridiculed performing with Russia's winning entry is the current Olympic figure skating champion. The Russians took this contest deadly seriously while we entered a former binman.

And if you want to talk about being overwhelmed by someone else's culture, think about this: while the contest was hosted in Belgrade, the whole show was presented in English, with the odd bit of token French translation. Of the 25 entrants, 17 were partly or wholly sung in English - including the French entry, something that caused a certain amount of controversy amongst our garlic-munching cousins. (It was the best song on the night, though.)

Eurovision has moved on from the 'glory' days when it was won by such mighty tunes as 'Boom Bang-a-Bang' and 'Din Dang Dong'. Maybe it's time for Wogan to move on, too.

Seasonal food only?

noreply@blogger.com (Robert) — Wed, 14 May 2008 08:47:00 +0000

Gordon Ramsay, the world's sweariest chef, thinks restaurants should be fined for serving food out of season. Fuck off!

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5142/

The fights are a bit like... sex

noreply@blogger.com (Robert) — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:48:00 +0000

Ultimate Fighting Championship is boxing with knobs on. And this kind of 'mixed martial arts' fighting echoes the Ancient Olympics.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4969/

Don't blame biofuels for the food crisis

noreply@blogger.com (Robert) — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:56:00 +0000

Biofuel is a thoroughly stupid idea - but putting the blame on fuel-from-food is missing the big picture.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4977/

Once you give authorities power, they are free to abuse them

noreply@blogger.com (Robert) — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:00:00 +0000

Rules create to allow spying on terrorist suspects now used to assess whether a child qualifies to attend a particular school.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7341179.stm

Who's afraid of food additives?

noreply@blogger.com (Robert) — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:33:00 +0000

From the Daily Mail today:

'Parents should prevent their children eating foods with artificial colourings, the Government's food watchdog said today. The Food Standards Agency has toughened its advice to consumers amid increasing evidence that some E numbers cause hyperactivity in children. It said any parent who suspects their child's behaviour is linked to foods containing bright food colourings should ban these from their diet. Previous guidelines restricted the ban to children already diagnosed with hyperactivity or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Foods which are causing concern include fizzy drinks, party cakes, luridly coloured sweets and some crisps.'

The advice is based on a study done by the University of Southampton. But actually, the effect found in that study was quite small. Essentially, a few children are affected noticeably by these colours, but most are either not affected or the effect is small - as I noted at the time the study was published:

Who's afraid of... food additives

Taxing times for Gordon Brown

noreply@blogger.com (Robert) — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 20:41:00 +0000

If only George Clooney could come and visit every day. Shake hands, make some vague promises about Darfur, get your photo taken with the world’s sexiest man. Simple. But George’s visit yesterday was over almost before it began - a bit like Gordon Brown’s political honeymoon.

spiked

Paula Radcliffe in sensible comment shock

noreply@blogger.com (Robert) — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 08:47:00 +0000

From the BBC today:

'Paula Radcliffe believes Beijing's heat and humidity will be more of a threat at the Olympics this summer than the Chinese capital's pollution.

Beijing's air quality has been flagged up as a potential problem for athletes in endurance events like the marathon.

But Radcliffe, who has asthma, believes the risks have been exaggerated.

"I need the right dosages of my asthma medication but after that I don't think it's something you can worry about too much," Radcliffe told BBC Sport.

"It might not even be as bad as everyone thinks because I'm sure the Chinese will do everything they can to reduce the problem.

"And the effects of pollution are usually felt after a race.

"Will I really care if I wake up the next morning with a sore throat and feeling a bit sick if I have got what I want the day before? No, probably not.'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics/athletics/7335397.stm

Delia is evil (again)

noreply@blogger.com (Robert) — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:55:00 +0000

Apparently, Delia's 'cheat' recipes contain too much salt for the good people at Consensus Action on Salt and Health (CASH).

Let's all get behind their campaign to prevent food from tasting of anything on the flimsy basis that salt might have some effect on blood pressure.

BBC News

Discussion of salt in Reason

Can suicide be grounds for a manslaughter charge?

noreply@blogger.com (Robert) — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 12:45:00 +0000

A woman, with a history of self-harm, falls out with her partner. After a heavy night out, she goes to the police and claims she has been raped by her boyfriend. However, five days later, she kills herself.

Today, the boyfriend was formally cleared of rape because no evidence was offered - his accuser having died. However, the interesting aspect is that the Crown Prosecution Service seriously considered a manslaughter charge against him, on the grounds that his deceased partner had killed herself because she was raped.

The offence of manslaughter is committed, among other things, if someone does something illegal which has the consequence of causing death. For example, if someone was punched in the face, fell to the ground and hit their head causing them to die, it would be manslaughter rather than murder because there was no intention to kill or cause really serious harm.

Extending this to the reaction of someone to a non-murderous crime seems mad. Yes, if he raped her, throw the book at him. But we have a choice about whether we kill ourselves. It is one thing to punish someone for the lethal consequences of relatively minor wrong-doing. It's quite another to be responsible for the considered choice of an autonomous human being days later.

Man cleared in suicide rape case

An unfortunate analogy

noreply@blogger.com (Robert) — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 09:47:00 +0000

From the BBC:

"Deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman has defended her decision to wear a stab proof jacket during a police walkabout in her south London constituency.

Ms Harman, also Commons leader and Labour chairman, rejected newspaper claims it suggested she did not feel safe on the streets.

She told the BBC that the neighbourhood police team she was with put on their stab vests and gave her one as well.

She said it was like wearing a white hairnet when visiting a meat factory."

A meat factory?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7324123.stm

Why there's no mileage in 'food miles'

noreply@blogger.com (Robert) — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:42:00 +0000

At last, people are questioning the eco-parochialism of the local-food lobby. But what we need now is a loud defence of modernised food production.

spiked

Michael Pollan - and the need for a defence of processed food

noreply@blogger.com (Robert) — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:20:00 +0000

My review of 'In Defence of Food' is published today on spiked. While Pollan is often a perceptive observer of the perversities of the food debate, he draws a lot of very conservative conclusions

Who will defend processed food?

Another interesting piece on food prices

noreply@blogger.com (Robert) — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:58:00 +0000

From today's Economist

'Most pundits, including Ms Sheeran, agree that the world now has plenty of food: last year saw a record cereal harvest. And the investments spurred by today's high prices promise even more food in future. Even if one allows for rising demand from Asia's middle classes, the real challenge is not the volume of food available; it is the problem of food being in the wrong place and at a price the poorest cannot afford. Michael Hess of USAID adds that famines are made inevitable by poor governance, not natural disasters. After all, "America has droughts, but not famine." '

Economist

Alcohol and pregnancy

noreply@blogger.com (Robert) — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:53:00 +0000

New guidelines have been issued by the UK's National Institute for Clinical Excellence, advising women not to drink at all during pregnancy - despite the fact that there is little scientific evidence that moderate drinking is harmful. In fact, even immoderate drinking - alcoholism - only causes foetal alcohol syndrome in five per cent of cases. So what's the harm in a little tipple? Sounds like yet another case of pregnant women being the targets of unwarranted health scares.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7313319.stm

Jennie Bristow puts it well: 'Women are not being told to give up all alcohol during pregnancy because of a health risk, but because to do so indicates that they have the right, responsible attitude to motherhood: not doing anything for themselves that might conceivably impact negatively on the baby in any way. That the government feels free to be so explicit about this is very bad news. Not only does it panic women unnecessarily, adding extra guilt to the already burdensome process of pregnancy; it also fuels a process in which the mother-to-be is being cast as someone separate to her fetus, and who simply by being pregnant puts her baby-to-be at risk.'

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3422/

Concept of food miles questioned

noreply@blogger.com (Robert) — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:07:00 +0000

The notion that 'food miles' can give an accurate assessment of the environmental impact of food production and transportation is further discussed, and criticised, in this week's Observer:

'The idea that "only local is good" has come under attack. For a start, food grown in areas where there is high use of fertilisers and tractors is likely to be anything but carbon-friendly, it is pointed out. At the same time the argument against food miles - which show how far a product has been shipped and therefore how much carbon has been emitted in its transport - has been savaged by experts. "The concept of food miles is unhelpful and stupid. It doesn't inform about anything except the distance travelled", Dr Adrian Williams, of the National Resources Management Centre at Cranfield University, told The Observer last week.

The problem is not how we measure environmental impact - it's the fact that we're obsessing on environmental impact in the first place.

Observer

How outside agitation hasn't helped Tibet

noreply@blogger.com (Robert) — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 09:52:00 +0000

From the International Herald Tribune today:

'Protests have spread across the Tibetan plateau over the last two weeks, and at least 100 people have died. Anyone who finds it odd that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has rushed to Dharamsala, India, to stand by the Dalai Lama's side fails to realize that American politics provided an important spark for the demonstrations. Last October, when the Congressional Gold Medal was awarded to the Dalai Lama, monks in Tibet watched over the Internet and celebrated by setting off fireworks and throwing barley flour. They were quickly arrested.'

'It was for the release of these monks that demonstrators initially turned out this month. Their brave stand quickly metamorphosed into a protest by Lhasa residents who were angry that many economic advantages of the last 10 or 15 years had gone to Han Chinese and Hui Muslims. A young refugee whose family is still in Tibet told me this week of the medal, "People believed that the American government was genuinely considering the Tibet issue as a priority." In fact, the award was a symbolic gesture, arranged mostly to make American lawmakers feel good.'

The author, Patrick French, who was once heavily involved in the Free Tibet movement, goes on to say:

'When Beijing attacks the "Dalai clique," it is referring to the various groups that make Chinese leaders lose face each time they visit a Western country. The International Campaign for Tibet, based in Washington, is now a more powerful and effective force on global opinion than the Dalai Lama's outfit in northern India. The European and American pro-Tibet organizations are the tail that wags the dog of the Tibetan government-in-exile.'

'These groups hate criticism almost as much as the Chinese government does. Some use questionable information. For example, the Free Tibet Campaign in London (of which I am a former director) and other groups have long claimed that 1.2 million Tibetans have been killed by the Chinese since they invaded in 1950. However, after scouring the archives in Dharamsala while researching my book on Tibet, I found that there was no evidence to support that figure.'

Read on...

Quadrupling of climate disasters?

noreply@blogger.com (Robert) — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:53:00 +0000

An Oxfam report suggests climate change has led to a quadrupling of weather-related disasters. It pays to interrogate such heated claims.

Lack of development: that's the real disaster

"Recycling is great for the kids"

noreply@blogger.com (Robert) — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:58:00 +0000

This is the argument I had to deal with on the Richard Bacon Show on Radio Five Live in the early hours of this morning. It doesn't save precious resources and it costs money (even if it's not a huge amount) - but the real problem is that recycling is used to project a moral message: we're all greedy and we've got to change our ways. And for kids, it's apparently a great way to teach them about responsibility. But if we're not screwing up the planet, then how can they be 'responsible' for it?

Here's something I wrote on the subject in 2002:

Recycling religion

'Hi! I'm Recycle Rex, spokesdinosaur for the Department of Conservation. My message is simple: "Recycle, reduce, reuse and close the loop." Recycling is one of the easiest and best things we can do for Planet Earth. By recycling and then buying recycled products for home, school and play, we can really make a difference.'

Recycle Rex features on the California Department of Conservation website. While this spiked debate weighs up the pros and cons of recycling, he's just the kind of cuddly character that is ramming the message down our children's throats. British kids can plough through school libraries full of books on the subject. Or they can have fun online as Ollie Recycles: 'Join Ollie and his friends and find out about the 3R's - Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.' So much for reading, writing and arithmetic.

One startled American writer recalls how early the lesson gets learned: 'At the age of four, my daughter earned her second diploma.… At the graduation ceremony, titled Friends of the Earth, I was lectured by four- and five-year-olds on the importance of safe energy sources, mass transportation, and recycling. The recurring mantra was "With privilege comes responsibility" as in "With the privilege of living on this planet comes the responsibility to care for it."'

Environmentalism has been latched on to by those keen to teach kids civic responsibility. And while we can't all do something directly about global warming or air pollution, we can all recycle. So, children get taught that separating the rubbish, collecting cans and bottles and keeping paper to one side is a Good Thing.

But it's not just the young'uns that are getting the message. Apparently, adults need to be taught, too. The UK government's Strategy Unit recently commissioned MORI to find out about people's attitudes to recycling: 'While the public considers the disposal of society's waste a significant environmental concern, it is not an issue at the forefront of their minds. The transient nature in which it is considered appears insufficient to establish and maintain habitual patterns of recycling.'

Yet once the recycling habit is inculcated, people can soon find themselves filled with a self-satisfied glow each time they pop down to the recycling bins: 'even though many initially only used the service because it was available, the act of participation itself then seems to foster a greater sense of environmental responsibility.'

The problem is that the benefits of recycling are still far from clear. While some products have been recycled or reused routinely for years (aluminium, paper for newsprint and water, for example), in each instance there has been a clear economic case for doing so. It is likely that further recycling, at least in Britain, will continue to be more expensive than landfill or incineration - unless the government artificially doctors the market.

The UK government Strategy Unit also commissioned a subsidiary report on the cost of collecting waste for recycling 5 . Costs for collection alone, based on refuse levels for 2000/1, have been estimated at over £500million per year. That does not take into account the costs associated with actual processing, although these costs can be offset against savings made in landfill and through sale of recycled products.

Another cost often overlooked is the time it takes householders to separate rubbish. How will the success of a waste separation scheme be ensured? The choices seem to be moral blackmail or the heavy hand of the law, as Germans have discovered.

In the absence of an economic incentive, governments' interest appears to be in using environmental issues as a kind of secular religion: weekly worship at the bottle bank. With traditional forms of allegiance like the church, trade unions and the monarchy receiving diminishing respect, new ways of creating a sense of common purpose are needed.

Environmentalism has a commonsense quality, in that most people can see that messing up the planet must be wrong. It is also conservative, an argument for slowing down the rate of change. And in recycling, it implies a form of activity that is suitably individualistic and a direct consequence of our increasing wealth. Bless me Father, for I have binned.

Recycling is just one means among many for dealing with waste. One of the benefits of economic growth is that we can choose to do things in a way which is not necessarily the cheapest but has other advantages (eg, aesthetic) which make it worthwhile.

Sticking with a system dominated by landfill won't 'cost the Earth'. Switching to recycling might cost a small fortune. When we assess how to deal with waste in the future, however, we should take the moral dimension out of the discussion.

The IPCC: the 'good lie'

noreply@blogger.com (Robert) — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:55:00 +0000

Today’s alarmist claims about the planet ‘spinning into a troubling void’ are not backed up by the findings of the latest IPCC report.

IPCC: separating fact from fright

Julia Hailes responds on recycling

noreply@blogger.com (Robert) — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:09:00 +0000

After a lively debate, to say the least, one of the participants shares her experience in the Daily Telegraph blogs:

Battle for recycling

Battle of Ideas blog in The Times

noreply@blogger.com (Robert) — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:59:00 +0000

Recycling is a waste of time

noreply@blogger.com (Robert) — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:20:00 +0000

How many kinds of waste do you recycle? I have four containers to recycle my waste, helpfully provided by my local council. There's a box for the glass and cans; a bag for paper and card; a brown wheelie bin for the garden waste; and a green wheelie bin for the rest. There's one other thing the council helpfully provides - the threat of a hefty fine if I don't do my civic duty and separate my waste.

If this colour-coded ritual was going to save the planet, I might have some sympathy. But separating our waste for recycling makes little difference to anything except increasing our council tax bills. Few precious resources are saved by this process. According to the government's latest waste strategy, paper, cardboard, discarded food, garden waste and 'sweepings' make up roughly two-thirds of what we throw away in our homes. These things – often literally – 'grow on trees'. They certainly have little value.

Recycling might reduce carbon emissions - but not by much. We might send less waste to landfills, but in Britain there are plenty of big holes in the ground waiting to be filled in. Recycling isn't going to save the planet, but it is a constant reminder to us all of how are wasteful ways are supposedly screwing up the world.

The debate about our waste turns our old ideas about the right direction for society upside down. Traditionally, we've measured material progress by finding more efficient ways to produce the goods and services we need. It's no accident that 'time is money'. The '3Rs' - reduce, reuse, recycle - suggest we should be more concerned about saving resources than saving time. And if that means doing things in a manner which is less productive - and ultimately may mean we are poorer as a result - the moral imperative of 'saving the planet' says we should do just that.

In other words, for all the fluffy talk about a caring, sharing green future, environmentalists are ultimately more concerned about 'stuff' than people.

One day, recycling may be an efficient process with highly mechanised systems sorting and processing waste by the tonne. There could be major advantages in dealing with our waste like that. Recycling might then be the best thing to do with rubbish. But for now, recycling is a waste of time - for householders, refuse collectors and waste processors. I believe the obsession with recycling is a backward step for society, inviting us to learn the lesson that human beings are parasites on the planet.

If you really want to see recycling in action, just look at the pitiful scenes of children picking over waste dumps in the developing world, looking for something with a modicum of value to sell on. Or look at shanty town dwellers forced to cobble together a home from the things that others throw away. Why on earth are governments and campaigners imposing that kind of thinking on modern, developed societies?

I'll be debating these points at the Battle of Ideas festival, 27/28 October in London.

Recycling is a waste of time

Michael O'Leary's green business model...

noreply@blogger.com (Robert) — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:18:00 +0000

From an interview with the Wall Street Journal:

'For once Mr. O'Leary--whose ego is reputedly as large as Ryanair is profitable--may be selling himself short. While Ryanair mimics Southwest in avoiding the largest hub airports and not selling assigned seats, the Irish carrier's efforts to reduce overhead go much further. If you want to check a bag, you pay extra. If you want a soft drink or pretzels on the flight, you pay extra. If you want an air-sickness bag, too bad--Ryanair has removed those, along with the back-of-the-seat pockets where they might have been stored, on all its aircraft. If there's a cost to be cut, it's been cut.'

In other words, if you don't want someone to do something, slap a charge on it. It seems like that's the only policy the UK government has, these days. Maybe they have more in common with O'Leary than they'd like to think.

My 'Stupid Business'

(Personally, I quite like O'Leary's take-no-shit approach but I hate flying Ryanair. Sometimes, though, they're so damned cheap there's no alternative. Just don't expect it to be a stress free experience and never travel at night if you can avoid it - the slightest whiff of a problem and their bargain basement planes can't fly. And as soon as anything goes wrong, you're screwed with them.)