Sustainable tourism?

I attended a keynote presentation from David Crowther today in a workshop on sustainable tourism. He was talking about sustainability as better use of natural resources we have and social resonsibility as issues of distribution of benefits so people at large are happy. He seemed to be saying that this doesn't necessarily mean lowering level of economic activity but that there is a lot of evidence that economic development of a society reduces happiness of that society. So do we make changes on grounds of human happiness rather than environmental values or do both come together here? His focus was primarily on social responsibility I think, downplaying the environmental dimension. He made light of the challenge of better use of resources, claiming it was largely a technical issue (does that mean it's therefore a done deal?...not sure what to make of this). But the distribution of benefits he saw as a much harder problem to which he wasn't offering an answer. It was quite a provocative talk with some interesting models and I felt it to be more conceptual than practical. I asked a question about whose values and ethics were in evidence in his kind of sustainable tourism which led on to some interesting discussion. Some insightful comments from Frank Go that the kind of tourism being discussed was mainly a western model to which China was beginning to subscribe but India may choose a different road and it might be helpful to align with the Indian model. Generally quite thought provoking.

It was also the second time in two days that I heard reference to Lovelock's current position as at one extreme in terms of saying its already too late for sustainable development and our level of resource use is completely unsustainable. I heard indirectly that Jonathon Porritt thinks of a spectrum from Lovelock to Lomborg and his position shifts a little one way and another. Good to hear that somehow.

Out in the woods today.....golden, glorious and ever so well behaved!

Wildlife photos of this year

Good to see once again some of the pictures from the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition that exhibits at the Natural History Museum.

More on "scientific truth".

Some nice summing up of the recent case against how Al Gore's 'an inconvenient truth' should be used in schools from Catherine Brahic, online environmental reporter for the New Scientist:

For my part, I would say that strictly speaking, Gore oversimplified certain points, made a few factual errors and, at times, chose the wrong poster child (Mount Kilimanjaro should have been replaced by any number of Alaskan or Andean glaciers, for instance). It's unfortunate, but it remains the most comprehensive popular documentary on climate change science I have seen.

Also interesting to see the extensive and diverse discussion in the comments that follow it.

Best environmental blogs

Looking around for good environmental blogs I came across this article from Josh Catone with a 'top 35'. Looks really good if a little overwhelming.

Lomborg on polar bears - refocus or distraction?

So Lomborg's once again slipped his scepticism into something of a void. This time in his book 'Cool it - is global warming a myth?', reviewed here, claiming that polar bears are more at risk from hunting than climate change. Once again he focuses on flaws in supporting data regarding climate change. In some ways any time data are presented uncritically as facts I think this kind of reaction is inevitable and Lomborg's contributions should help others to sharpen the arguments he opposes. I don't think environmental values should be beyond reproach. I get the impression Lomborg's more trying to refocus the debate about carbon emissions ...than deny that our activities contribute to global warming. But I don't yet see how his refocusing will improve the challenges we're facing. As with his 2001 book 'The Sceptical Environmentalist' I think many environmental writers and presenters leave themselves open to this kind of challenge. I think questioning and checking whether we're focused on the 'right' actions regarding climate change is important so value Lomborg's contribution in that way. But I share Porritt's concern that there's already widespread scientific consensus about the effects of people's activities on climate change in spite of many people in the UK believing otherwise according to this year's Ipsos MORI opionion poll which could do a lot of harm in terms of people sitting on the fence rather than taking environmental action. There's an unhelpful element of distraction from action, in arguing about the detail in Lomborg's approach. Not perhaps denying that the iconic polar bear will die out because of people's activities but just how and when.

Gore's response to court ruling

I was interested to find on a Greenpeace blog a report of Al Gore's response to the court ruling re use of 'Inconvenient Truth' in schools (extract below). It goes some way to address my question already raised on this blog about whose purpose the court case served.

"From the start, this court case has reminded me of the "intelligent design" lawsuits in the US. The whole point of the climate change denying camp is to create a false sense of debate, when (in fact) the science on global warming is painfully clear. They've done a pretty good job of this - delaying real action for years - but we can't afford to let them keep doing it."

Porritt on capitalism as if the world matters

Jonathon Porritt's book 'Capitalism as if the world matters' launches in paperback today. Here's an extract from what he says about it on his blog. I like his directness and think he's right in the links he's making.

"2007: the atmosphere warms up; the forests crash down; the poor of the world go on getting poorer; water resources in more than 30 countries are running dry; fish stocks decline; an additional 73 million people join the human race; 800 million go hungry while a billion get fat. Just an average year in the life of planet Earth. And still we wait for today’s political “leaders” to begin to get their act together.

This is not a question of disputed science. Even on climate change, the consensus is now overwhelming. Neither it is a question of money. The rich world squanders countless billions of dollars of tax payers money on subsidising life-destroying industries year in, year out. Instead, it is a question of fear and lack of political vision.

Politicians are fearful because they don’t believe the answers can be found within a capitalist framework. And they know they won’t get elected unless they go on offering voters the same kind of “get rich quick, party on politics” that has dominated our lives for the last 50 years."

Autumn mists

Wonderful light and effects coming through Rutland this morning as the sun started to burn off the mist.

Taking responsibility - green spaces and obesity

Walking out from the house this morning I was struck by how many people were out and about across the fields and round the woods enjoying the early sunshine and a bit of exercise. If the area was housed over and it meant getting in a car to get to the start of a walk, I doubt most of us would have bothered. With concerns about rising rates of obesity and the unhealthy lifestyles of our society in the news today I think keeping local walking areas that are away from traffic is pretty important. I was interested to hear about Natural England's current focus on 'greener green belts'. I think we really need our green spaces. I'm not sure I go along entirely with these 'findings' that this obesity trend is not the fault of individuals though. Externalising responsibility seems a current trend. I think it's easy to feel disempowered in the UK with the pressures of development and local opinion appearing to count for so little - as in the case of Centre Parcs and Warren Wood mentioned previously in this blog. But as individuals we can and do make choices about what we eat and how we live so to suggest that responsibility doesn't lie with individuals at all seems odd to me.

Autumn colours

Taken at Westonbirt Arboretum yesterday. Hard to believe that these colours can be found all together! The woods were splendid.

Whose purpose does this serve?

So a judge has found some scientific flaws in Al Gore's 'An inconvenient truth', casting doubt on how it's used in UK schools. The school governor and parent who brought the case is allegedly delighted. It made main headline news on the BBC's main evening news on Wednesday.

Whose purpose does it serve to take this through the courts? Surely good teachers and schools would use any film material critically and include discussion of values not just facts? What does this governor have to gain? Is he just making a point of principle about our Government dictating what's shown in schools? Or is he trying to suggest that science is somehow value free and that alternative ways of teaching about climate change would be so much better?

As an ex-teacher I think I'd have found Gore's film a very useful resource but it wouldn't be the only one I'd use. Doesn't this line of attack on such a film instead send out a message of reassurance to pupils that it's not as bad as was made out so it's OK for them to do nothing? Just about all resources used in school advocate one particular line or other and echo the values of those who've produced them. There's such an inertia in our society about taking action to positive effect rather than sitting on the fence and defending the status quo. There seems to me a good case for using material that provokes, which is what the Gore film seemed to me to do. Important that pupils learn about 'good science' but not at the expense of everything else and as if it's value free.

And why did this make headline news on the BBC?

Nuclear 'spin' from 1957

I spent my very early days in Seascale on England's northwest coast. We left just a few months before the 1957 October 10th fire, at the nearby Windscale nuclear reactor. Too early for me to remember but this association with place meant I was both fascinated and horrified to watch the BBC's documentary this week about events at that time. It was stated then that 'error of judgement' of workers at the site had led to the fire. But in practice it was they who put the fire out at considerable risk to themselves and in so doing averted a catastrophe that could have left that part of UK uninhabitable to this day. Political pressure to cut corners to keep up with the US in testing nuclear bombs sounds to have been the main contributor to the fire. The cover-up was an early example of political 'spin' - protecting those at the top. They passed the buck.....disgraceful! ....and to have to wait 50 years to set the record straight!?!?

The rut

We were in Woburn Park for a while today. The deer were all stirred up with many stags calling and very aware of each other and marking out their herds. It was a beautiful autumn day, a touch of mist with sun shining through and the colours were wonderful. All in all, quite an atmosphere.

Sitting on the fence

Greece in September...quite splendid!