In an ideal world, we might expect that most people would come to similar conclusions on the basis of a given set of facts. As J M Keynes (may have) said “When the facts change, I change my mind”. But the real world isn’t like that. People quite naturally fail to agree when the information is incomplete but, less rationally, they often disagree when the evidence is apparently clear-cut. Because what seems obvious to person A may seem far from convincing to person B, gulfs of misunderstanding (often willful) open up between them and the chances of agreement are slight at best.
The analogy is of two people on separate mountain peaks shouting to each other but not being able to hear what the other is saying. Individual proponents stick to their principles and simply do not understand why others can hold a different view. Usually, it is because of different basic world-views acting as the filter for information. Thus, convinced Marxists are certain to disagree with supporters of the free market. Similarly, those who identify themselves by their environmentalism sometimes are at odds with people who put prosperity or other matters higher on their priority lists. We may engage people in argument, offering a whole range of evidence to get them to change their minds, but the chances of doing so are vanishingly small.
To develop the analogy, the terms of the argument can be changed by meeting in the lowlands between the peaks. Starting at a different level of discussion, we can often find large areas of common ground between the same people who normally take part in the dialogue of the deaf on top of their lofty peaks of principle. For example, who doesn’t want a clean, healthy, safe environment? And who would willingly spoil an open view with industrial-scale installations if there was a realistic alternative?
But start making the upward journey from the broad lowlands of agreement and the difficulties start. Everyone may want a clean, healthy environment, but what level of priority should it have? Some – including me – would argue that a certain level of prosperity is needed for there to be a consensus on the importance of protecting and conserving the environment. The natural world may be under threat from both industry and farming, but both of these are well regulated in modern societies and transgressions are both exceptions to the rule and are punished. Nevertheless, there are others who would put more emphasis still on environmental matters, but this is a matter of balance and degree. The fact that the practical differences may be relatively small does not, of course, stop the debate from being rather polarised and, at times, confrontational.
The real environmental damage comes in developing countries which are rapidly industrialising and giving little thought to much else. Chinese cities suffer appalling levels of air pollution, just as English mill towns did during the Industrial Revolution. The most egregious recent example is the old USSR and Communist eastern Europe, where heavy industry was built and operated at the whim of the central planning system, with horrendous consequences for air and water quality. Fortunately, the natural world is highly resilient, and recovers well from such abuse.
Energy generation is perhaps the biggest area of disagreement when it comes to environmental issues in the industrialised world. It is certainly the most important, given that modern societies need a secure energy supply to function. Shortages of transport fuel can rapidly disrupt complex logistics chains and supplies of food and other basic needs. Interruptions to the electricity supply mean no light or manufacturing but also make the normal functioning of society impossible as computer systems and communications go down.
People who think that radical decarbonisation of the energy system in the near future is our only hope of avoiding potentially catastrophic global warming argue that fossil fuels should be phased out in favour of renewables, even at the risk of reduced energy security. The Liberal Democrats have even proposed recently that private cars fuelled by petrol or diesel should be phased out by 2040 (Ban petrol and diesel cars, say Lib Dems).
Mostly, individuals fall into one of two camps, those who think this is a laudable aim and those who think it ridiculous, unnecessary and unachievable. But, even in matters as contentious as this, we thankfully find some more nuanced opinion, with reality impinging on deeply held views. This week saw a very thoughtful piece from Hugo Rifkind in the Times: Fracking shatters all the old green battlelines.
He sums up the conflicts and difficulties beautifully, first using the example of wind turbines: “I can just about cope with an economic criticism; that we have the incentives wrong and wind farms are actually subsidy farms, rewarding technological box-ticking rather than the actual generation of power. But start advancing the notion that the whole concept is just not a very good idea — that, like hybrid cars or most solar panels, wind turbines are all for show — and I start feeling edgy. Never mind, for now, whether such claims are true. The important thing is how badly I want them not to be.”
Mr Rifkind goes on to give a very balanced summary of the merits of shale gas and the lack of evidence of harm. In his words “Environmentalists need to grow up. Everybody knows that wind and hydro alone simply won’t save the planet. The physics might work, but the “human co-operation” angle simply isn’t achievable. ... Fracking does not mark a death knell for environmental politics. We need to support this not because we’ve given up being environmentalists, but because we’ve matured into environmentalists who want to get stuff done.”
It is views like this which give me cause to be optimistic about future developments. Open-minded people cannot simply ignore realities for ever. And once these realities are admitted, however grudgingly, progress can be made.
Martin Livermore
The Scientific Alliance
St John’s Innovation Centre
Cowley Road
Cambridge CB4 0WS
___________________________________________________