You want to search my bag? I elect to swim.

On returning from a trip to Washington DC, I found this inside my suitcase.

Notice of Baggage Inspection, found in my suitcase.

The full text:

Transportation Security Administration

NOTICE OF BAGGAGE INSPECTION
To protect you and your fellow passengers, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is required by law* to inspect all checked baggage. As part of this process, some bags are opened and physically inspected. Your bag was among those selected for physical inspection. During the inspection, your bag and its contents may have been searched for prohibited items. At the completion of the inspection, the contents were returned to your bag.

If the TSA security officer was unable to open your bag for inspection because it was locked, the officer may have been forced to break the locks on your bag. TSA sincerely regrets having to do this, however TSA is not liable for damage to your locks resulting from this necessary security precaution.

For packing tips and suggestions on how to secure your baggage during your next trip, please visit:
www.tsa.gov

We appreciate your understanding and cooperation. If you have questions, comments or concerns, please feel free to contact the TSA Contact Center:
Phone: 866.289.9673
Email: TSA-Contact-Center@dhs.gov

*Section 110(b) of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001, 49 U.S.C. 44901(c)-(e)

Smart Security Saves Time

Rev. 8-1-2004

I especially like the bit where they reserve the right to break open your suitcase in order to get inside it, then deny any liability for the damage. Lucky I left the Louis Vuitton at home, I suppose

By pure coincidence, I did a bit of reading on the US Constitution during my trip, although it would seem that the TSA’s interpretation of the 4th Amendment is rather different to mine. Here it is, in all its glory:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Am I missing something here? Ah yes. Apparently I consented to being searched without probable cause when I decided to board the plane. According to the TSA website, although “No matter where you’re going, air travel is an essential part of your trip,” “passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.” So that’s alright then.

Open Letter on Female Bishops: an Update

Introduction

Shortly after publishing my open letter to Michael Farthing and Paul Lazell concerning the Sussex Chaplain’s position on female bishops, I received a response to my personal email account. While the correspondent asked me not to publish his name (as it was originally intended as a private communication), the message itself adds clarity to the issue and raises a few points worth addressing. Therefore, I am publishing it here with his permission. My response follows immediately afterwards.

Dear Mr Chadwick,

I like your photography.

Having come across and read your open letter, I thought I ought to google you and find out who might have written it.

So good luck with the photography and paying off the student debt.

But your chances of getting employed to pay off the debt may be harmed by going public in a way that demonstrates 10 out of ten for passion

and 0 for accuracy.

You don’t seem to know your own chaplain who in wider public circles has a reputation entirely at odds from the one you construct in your open letter.

And you don’t seem to have bothered to ask him for his views which you appear to misrepresent in public.

Is this an indication of why Sussex’s research ratings have fallen so drastically? [note: this claim appears to be false. See here and here. - Mal]

A little research on your part would have avoided this public mistake.

If you had taken a little more time and trouble you would have come across this paragraph in the Church Times of July 4th.

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=59196

“Canon Gavin Ashenden, who supports women bishops, said on Tuesday that he had signed the letter because he believed that, without safeguards, there would be “theological cleansing” (of traditionalists).

So it appears that he is in favour of women bishops (contrary to your assertions) and in favour of the protection of beleaguered minorities, which I had understood to be a valued part of Sussex culture also.

You might have discovered from a little googling that he appears to be valued as a supporter of another minority group of LGBT and Young Lesbian and Gay Christians.

http://www.ylgc.org.uk/march-meeting-report.htm

“In March 2006, around thirty YLGC members met for one of our main quarterly meetings, in West Hampstead, London. Our hosts were one of the local parish churches who count several of our members amongst their congregation – and we were made to feel very welcome. After a short business meeting, and getting to know several new people over lunch, we had a most enjoyable and thought provoking discussion led by Rev’d Gavin Ashenden. Gavin is a university chaplain, and a firm friend of YLGC.”

This also seems to be a valued part of Sussex culture.

Perhaps you can demonstrate your own integrity by issuing as public apology for misrepresenting Dr Ashenden.

Shall I forward this to the Vice Chancellor or wait for your you to amend your letter and provide an apology on your own terms?

Sincerely,

[NAME]

 

Response

Dear [NAME],

Thank you very much for taking the time to reply to my post. I’m flattered that somebody with a doctorate considers my writing significant enough to warrant a personal response. I want to thank you also for permitting me to publish your message. I hope anybody reading this can benefit from the clarity that a public exchange can bring to an issue.

Unfortunately I found almost every sentence of your letter deeply objectionable, and were I not concerned for brevity, I would take great pleasure in dissecting it line-by-line. However, for the sake of keeping the discussion focused, I will only deal with the key points pertaining to the issue at hand. Please do not take this as indication that I view your personal attacks, smug asides, irrelevant excurses and outrageous non-sequiturs with anything other than disdain. With that out of the way, let us get down to business.

I am going to begin by offering a qualified apology to Dr Ashenden for misrepresenting his views. I realise that as somebody writing for public consumption, I should have been more diligent in checking my facts, especially on such a contentious issue. So why ‘qualified’? Read on, and I will explain.

I am of course glad that Dr Ashenden supports the ordination of women bishops. He is right to do so. However, I am not convinced that his stated motivation for signing the letter exempts him from criticism. I believe that Dr Ashenden was wrong to sign the letter for two reasons:

1) Perception

Let’s be clear on one thing. The letter to which Dr Ashenden put his name is unequivocal in its opposition to women bishops. Consider the following passage from the letter:

“Our theological convictions […] lead us to doubt the sacramental ministry of those women ordained to the priesthood by the Church of England since 1994.”

Dr Ashenden’s name appears beneath this statement in black and white. Is it really so lax or unreasonable to conclude that he endorses it? Let me reiterate my acceptance that I should have checked this more carefully. I have to ask, however – how many of the millions of people who must have read Ashenden’s letter are likely to do “a little googling” afterwards, just in case one of the signatories didn’t actually agree with its core message? By signing this letter, Dr Ashenden has given a huge number of people the impression that he opposes women bishops. Although this may not be a failure of moral reasoning, it does suggest remarkably poor judgment.

If you are truly concerned with Dr Ashenden’s professional reputation, I would suggest that instead of worrying about an article posted on my drop-in-the-ocean of a blog (at the time of writing, a total of 36 people had viewed my original post), you get in touch with him and advise that he refrain from publicly endorsing the views of reactionary imbeciles.

2) Legitimacy

Dr Ashenden states that he signed the letter because “he believed that, without safeguards, there would be “theological cleansing” (of traditionalists).” This is all very ecumenical of him. It is also a complete betrayal of the women whose equality he claims to espouse.

By signing this letter, Dr Ashenden demonstrates that his commitment to gender equality is far surpassed by his concern that the mighty steamboat of clunking prejudice in which the dissenters sit is not rocked too hard. The idea of ‘safeguards’ is not only deeply insulting to the women in question, but also gives unwarranted credibility to the view that the lack of a Y chromosome should disqualify one from holding a position of authority in the church. Never has Sam Harris’ observation that “The doors leading out of scriptural literalism do not open from the inside” seemed so apt.

As an outside observer of this debate, I have been astounded at the level of deference that has been accorded to the traditionalist position, both by the secular media and by those within the church who support the new measures. The traditionalist position has been accorded a legitimacy far beyond that which it deserves. The reticence of liberals to point out that their opponents’ views are simply and inexcusably wrong is utterly baffling. We have such mealy-mouthed equivocation to thank for the church’s appalling failure to keep pace with social progress.

I cannot understand why supporters like Ashenden are so troubled by the potential departure of the traditionalists. Simply put, they make the CoE look ridiculous. Even if there were no other good reasons to avoid the pantomime of organised religion, the absurd displays of bronze age patriarchal twaddle that emanate daily from this maladjusted faction would easily suffice. The idea that these people need or deserve “protection” is laughable. If they are beleaguered, it is because their views are outdated and disgusting. If they are a minority, this should be cause for celebration – their bigotry adds daily to the sum of human misery. I think you understand perfectly well that the status of a group as a “beleaguered minority” does not, a priori, entitle it to anything. This, presumably, is why you are not standing in solidarity with Al Qaeda and the Tamil Tigers.

The Church of England has a serious image problem and this is embodied in every pew left empty on Sunday, and in each bestselling atheist polemic that rolls off the presses. Could this be because it seems more concerned with squabbling over matters that were resolved to secular satisfaction decades ago, than with offering a relevant and fulfilling spirituality to its public? Frankly, if this organisation cannot survive without these fanatics, it does not deserve to survive at all.

What bothers me most about this controversy and its equally ugly sexual and embryological bedfellows is the inexplicable double standard that is applied to organised religion in comparison to its secular institutional counterparts. I can think of no other area of public life where such obscene levels of backwardness would be tolerated. We should not congratulate the Church of England for its hesitant stumblings towards egalitarianism. The spinelessness displayed by our established church in pandering to its reactionary wing must be condemned as the collectively humiliating disgrace that it is.

Once again, I apologise to Dr Ashenden for misrepresenting his views in my original post. However, given the extent to which he misrepresented his own views by signing the letter, and the vacuity of the political cause that drove him to do so, I think this should be the least of his worries.

Yours sincerely,

Malachi Chadwick

An open letter to Michael Farthing and Paul Lazell

Post updated 6/8/08. See below for details.

Introduction

This letter is addressed to Professor Michael Farthing – Vice Chancellor of the University of Sussex, and Professor Paul Lazell, Deputy Vice Chancellor and Chair of the Equality and Diversity Committee at the University of Sussex. It concerns the actions of one Dr Gavin Ashenden, who currently serves as the Chaplain at Sussex. Ashenden, in his professional capacity, recently gave his support to a group within the Church of England currently opposing the ordination of female bishops.

The Letter

Dear sirs,

As you may be aware, the nascent rift in global Anglicanism has recently been heightened by the imminent introduction of a new policy allowing the ordination of women into the episcopate, thus paving the way for the first female Bishops in the Church of England.

On the first of July 2008, a group of conservative dissidents released an open letter to Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury in protest of the new policy. In it, they demand that the new policy contains a clause acknowledging the legitimacy of their opposition, and guaranteeing that they would not be obliged to recognise the authority of female bishops, in order that they may “carry out their ministry in a way consonant with the traditional exercise of Episcopal office”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–>

This complaint is accompanied by a thinly veiled threat, warning that “should the Church of England indeed go ahead with the ordination of women to the episcopate, without at the same time making provision which offers us real ecclesial integrity and security, many of us will be thinking very hard about the way ahead. […] Your Graces will know that the cost of such a choice would be both spiritual and material.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[2]<!–[endif]–>

While we are all accustomed to such anachronistic absurdity from organised religion, I was dismayed to find that the University Chaplain, The Reverend Canon Dr Gavin Ashenden was among the signatories, clearly in his professional capacity. While I respect Dr Ashenden’s freedom to express his religious convictions (however distasteful they may be), I am deeply concerned that the reputation of our institution is being conjured in support of these views. While it is associated with the University of Sussex, such arrant bigotry demeans us all.

It is with regret that I note the firm theological ground upon which Ashenden and his fellow dissidents stand. The first book of Timothy in the New Testament, for example states that “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[3]<!–[endif]–> However, it must be the case that secular, progressive institutions such as ours cannot legitimately support or endorse organised religion unless such absolutist scriptural literalism remains firmly subordinate to common sense.

The University of Sussex is renowned for its progressive ethos and liberal outlook on social issues. By way of a respectful reminder, I therefore wish to draw your attention to the following passages from the university’s Equality and Diversity Policy, in which the university formally commits to:

• <!–[if !supportLists]–><!–[endif]–>“ensure that people are treated solely on the basis of their abilities and potential, regardless of race, colour, nationality, ethnic origin, religious or political belief or affiliation, trade union membership, age, gender, gender reassignment, marital status, sexual orientation, disability, socio- economic background, or any other inappropriate distinction.”
• <!–[if !supportLists]–><!–[endif]–>“promote and sustain an inclusive and supportive study and work environment which affirms the equal and fair treatment of individuals in fulfilling their potential and does not afford unfair privilege to any individual or group.”
• <!–[if !supportLists]–><!–[endif]–>“challenge inequality and less favourable treatment and wherever practicable.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[4]<!–[endif]–>

I believe that for Sussex to truly embody these principles, it must actively disassociate itself from contrary views expressed by a member or staff in their professional capacity. There is a strong precedent for such a move. In 2002, an article was published in The Bulletin in response to racist sentiments published by Professor Geoffrey Sampson of the Informatics Department. In the article, Professor Farthing’s predecessor Alasdair Smith was quoted as follows:

“The University of Sussex does not share or condone Professor Sampson’s personal views on race in any way. We have a long and proud history of teaching and research involving staff and students of all backgrounds, from the UK and overseas, and strong involvement in international development issues. This will continue to be a core part of life at Sussex.” <!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[5]

<!–[endif]–>

 

I therefore urge you to take the following action:

<!–[if !supportLists]–>· <!–[endif]–>Release a public statement renouncing Dr Ashendens’ views, and making it clear that the university neither shares nor condones them.

<!–[if !supportLists]–>· <!–[endif]–>Insist that that any further participation in this debate by Dr Ashenden be kept clearly and meticulously separate from his work as the University Chaplain, and that he refrain from co-opting the University’s credibility in support any activities associated with such participation.

I hope you will agree that these are prudent and reasonable steps to take, and look forward to your response.

Respectfully yours,

Malachi Chadwick

School of Humanities/Outgoing USSU Ethical & Environmental Officer

<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>

---

<!–[endif]–>

<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–> http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2008/07/01/OPENLETTER.pdf

<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[2]<!–[endif]–> ibid

<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[3]<!–[endif]–> 1 Timothy 2:11-12

<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[4]<!–[endif]–> http://www.sussex.ac.uk/humanresources/documents/equalitydiversitypolicy.pdf

<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[5]<!–[endif]–> http://www.sussex.ac.uk/press_office/bulletin/17may02/article1.shtml

UPDATE: Since publishing this letter, I have been made aware that Dr Ashenden’s views on women bishops are not entirely consistent either with the original letter that he signed, or my reporting thereof in the preceding article. Dr Ashenden does in fact favour the ordination of women bishops. His decision to sign the letter stemmed, apparently, from a desire to prevent the exclusion of traditionalists from the Church of England. I have written a new post discussing the implications of this new information, which can be found here.

Once more unto the animation breach, dear friends…

I dived back into the rather terrifying world of flash animation this week, after an extended hiatus. Animation is one of those things that I dabbled in when I was first getting interested in all this computer arts stuff, but never found the motivation (or imperative) to really pursue. Anyhow, a couple of projects clearly demanded it, so I dusted off my now rather antiquated copy of MX2004 and got started.

Admittedly, it did take me half an hour to remember that you have to put objects on different layers if you want them to do different things, but aside from that minor hiccup, I found the experience surprisingly agreeable. Sort of like coming back to a difficult book armed with a couple more years of education than you had at the first attempt. Anyway, before I embark on my compulsive habit of stretching analogies to breaking point, here are the fruits of my labours:

An intro animation to some interviews I filmed during a recent conference.

Adding a bit of movement to the logo of What Productions, a group of documentary makers that I work with on a regular basis.

I’ll also be collaborating with the dangerously excellent Tom Wright on the website for their next project, which I’m really looking forward to. Updates shall be forthcoming thereconcerning. Incidentally, the word ‘thereconcerning’ only gets 32 hits on Google, so I feel justified in calling myself a pioneer. All in a day’s work.

On Flip-Flopping

Julian Baggini posted an interesting article on Comment is Free recently, in which he discusses the idea of ‘flip-flopping‘ – the term used to describe the sudden reversal by a politician of a previously held view or policy position, and made famous during the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election.

Baggini makes the unobjectionable but often overlooked point that making a political u-turn is actually more difficult, and usually more laudable than sticking dogmatically to one’s views in the face of conflicting evidence:

Where are the conviction politicians of today, people ask. I’ll tell you: in Zimbabwe, in Tehran, and in the White House. [...] courage of conviction is too often admired even when the convictions are hopelessly wrong.

[...]

The trouble with most people is not that they lack the courage to stick to their guns, but they don’t have the greater bravery to change course. Consistency is a good thing, but not when it is understood as simply refusing to change your mind. Indeed, one of the best reasons for changing your mind is precisely to become more consistent.

In many ways, I’m with him on this. It’s pretty clear that unwavering commitment to a particular idea or policy prescription is unwise, and often actually dangerous. If Mao Zedong had ‘flip-flopped’ on Lysenko’s theory of environmentally acquired inheritance, for example, the needless starvation of millions during the ‘Great Leap Forward’ could have been averted.

I also think that the ‘flip-flop’ as a political concept needs to be examined more critically. It has become a ‘frame’ for presenting a particular category of political behaviour – a bundle of simplistic negative connotations that can be attached to a person or action, ensuring that it will be interpreted negatively. These frames are common in American politics especially (see also: Michelle Obama as an ‘angry black woman‘), and generally serve only to elide complexity and prevent issues from being judged on a case-by-basis.

Like all stereotypes and simplifications the ‘flip-flopper’ frame contains a grain of truth, and Baggini touches on this in describing the three respects in which consistency is important in politics:

First, we need to know what values are guiding their decisions; no matter how good it is to reassess one’s values, we need to rely on those we elect to adhere to the ethos on which they were elected. Second, elections only make sense if people follow the bulk of the policies they were elected to implement, not just a general agenda. Third, changes of mind that occur because politicians didn’t think clearly the first time do not inspire confidence. Brown’s U-turn on the 10p tax was a classic example of a change of mind that, though welcome, betrayed poor judgment in the first place.

All of these are valid points, and in fact I’m in broad agreement with the bulk of this article. However, I think Baggini misses a crucial dimension of the issue, and his analysis suffers as a result. I’m talking about the sincerity, or lack of it, that underlies the u-turn. Clearly when it comes to a change of position, motives matter. If a politician says one thing to AIPAC, and then something completely contradictory to ISNA the following week, we would be naive to think that evidence and rationality accounted for any disparity between the two statements. Such cynical pandering certainly couldn’t be called courageous, other than, perhaps, in its audacity.

If this post is about anything (and I’m beginning to wonder), it’s a warning as to the danger of allowing the reductive tendencies of media representation to obscure the invariably complex reality of a given political situation. I’m pretty sure we deserve better than that.

Here’s an idea…

The new name for Stockwell Tube Station

Evidence: When to care?

A classic bit of ironic headlineage from the ever-oblivious Telegraph kicks us off today…

Faith schools undermined by ‘Government witch hunt’

The Telegraph
By Graeme Paton, Education Editor

Faith schools are being undermined by a Government-backed “witch hunt“, according to a new report.

Ministers have exaggerated claims that Christian, Jewish and Muslim schools cherry-pick the best pupils to justify a series of “plots and threats” against the religious sector, it is claimed.

Key changes to school admissions rules – including a ban on interviewing families – have been introduced despite a lack of real evidence that faith schools discriminate against poor pupils, the Centre for Policy Studies think-tank said.

Earlier this year, the Government caused controversy by claiming a “significant minority” of faith schools were breaking new laws designed to make the admissions system fairer. Jim Knight, the schools minister, said it was “shocking” that schools were using banned policies to weed out children from poor homes, including charging parents up-front fees for free education and failing to give priority to children in care.

But it provoked a furious response from faith schools who accused the Government of basing its claims on flawed evidence.

“The witch hunt is on,” said the latest study.

…and so on. I’m also rather tickled by the idea of ‘faith school’ leaders getting all indignant at the government using claims based on ‘flawed evidence’. Somebody needs to sit these people down and have a quiet chat about pots and kettles, methinks.

Behind the pointing and laughing potential, however, there is a serious point to be made here. Despite their attachment to the intellectual black hole that is faith (understood in epistemological terms, rather than as a positive outlook in the face of uncertainty, for example), the emphasis that the faith-schoolers place on ‘evidence’ in the debate suggests that the problem with religious people is not that they fail to value or recognise the importance of evidence in human discourse. Rather, they simply draw a convenient magic circle around a particular subset of their beliefs (namely those pertaining to the existence of a divine being and the provenance of various works of bronze-age literature), decreeing them immune from rational scrutiny and labelling ignorant and unsophisticated anybody who challenges this rather spurious distinction.

That this bizarre construct fails to cause intolerable cognitive dissonance is a source of constant amazement for me. It seems absurd that we humans are able to fence off certain areas of our mental world with such ease, creating peaceful enclaves where dubious extrapolations and outrageous non-sequiturs can relax and grow strong away from the hungry jaws of rational criticism and empirical observation.

Perhaps the most important insight to take from this is that the beliefs which lie inside the a person’s ‘fence’ (and clearly they are not always religious in nature) might tend to be those in which they are most invested – that they have the most to lose by giving up. The emotional, social and sometimes material consequences threatening the potential apostate or are enormous, whether for the Christian teenager whose social circle is centered on his church, or the skeptical Muslim in Yemen, for whom the penalty for renouncing his or her religion is death. Understood in this way, it becomes clear why the holding and changing of beliefs is not a simple matter of taking one’s best judgement about the state of the external world, and thus the gradual reinforcement of this compartmentalised thinking becomes rather more undestandable. It also sheds light on the memetic power of religious belief systems – the way in which nurturing and transmitting religious dogma becomes a matter of self interest allows us to better understand how such empirically and rationally dubious ideas can be transmitted across cultures and generations.

22 Minutes to Midnight: Humanity in Context

Imagine condensing the history of the universe into a single year. This moment is midnight on the 31st of December, and the big bang took place in the first milisecond of January 1st.

On this scale, our planet didn’t come into being until September 14th. The first dinosaurs walked the Earth on December 24th, and were extinct by the 28th.

And humans? We came into being approximately 22 minutes ago.

[For the record, this post was inspired by a display at the Air and Space Museum in Washington DC]

Oil by Numbers: petrol/crude prices in 2006 and today

As the UK feels the effects of rising petrol prices, and the world looks on in dismay as crude hits $140 a barrel, the government’s taxes on fuel are once again coming in for criticism. People rightly point out that we have some of the highest rates of fuel tax in Europe, and it then becomes tempting to blame the government for recent price increases. After a couple of (reasonably good-natured) debates on the subject, I decided to look a bit further into the actual relationship between the price of crude oil, the price of petrol at the pump, and the rate of tax on each litre bought.

So if my C in GCSE Mathematics dost not deceive me, the numbers go something like this:

(click on a figure to view its source)

Petrol

2006

Price of one litre of unleaded petrol, purchased in the UK in mid 2006 (approx): 90p

UK fuel duty as a percentage of cost: 67%

2008

Price of one litre of unleaded petrol, purchased in the UK in mid 2008 (approx): £1.15

UK fuel duty as a percentage of cost: 58%

Differences

Price difference 2006-2008: +22.5%

Fuel duty difference as a percentage of cost 2006-2008: -9%

Oil

2006

WTI Light Crude for delivery (per barrel) in summer 2006 (approx): US$80

2008

WTI Light Crude for delivery (per barrel) as of 16/6/08: US$140

Difference

Price difference 2006-2008: +75%

So, if my calculations are correct, not only has fuel duty decreased as a proportion of price, but also the cost of petrol at the pump has actually decreased in relation to the market price of crude oil by over 50%. This suggests that the characterisation of this problem as the fault of a greedy, uncaring government, squeezing motorists until the pips squeak is rather misleading, as the government is doing proportionally less well out of petrol than it was two years ago. Of course, that in itself doesn’t establish that UK fuel duty isn’t too high despite the cut, but it does seem to refute the idea that the government is more to blame for rising prices than, say, growing worldwide demand for crude, or worries about OPEC’s hilariously inflated reserve estimates.

Although I can see that the price rises have made things difficult for a lot of people, I’m inclined to think that this is for the best in the long run. Whether we like it or not, we are going to have to move to a post-fossil fuel economy at some point; our choice now isn’t whether or not we stick with oil, but whether we ensure that this hugely significant transition is smooth, equitable, and relatively painless, or violent, disruptive, and socially devastating.

Lowering petrol prices at this stage is a short-term fix at best, cementing people still further into their reliance on oil, and making the final supply crunch even more painful when it does come along. Of course, this does not even begin to touch on the impacts of climate change, which are being exacerbated by sustained high petrol consumption. Instead of cutting tax, it would seem more sensible for the government to allocate a significant proportion of its revenue from fuel duty towards assistance programmes, helping to wean the public off fossil fuels. This could involve a whole host of measures, from funding research into electric cars and genuinely sustainable biofuels, to subsidising electric vehicles and investing in public transport.

Sadly, my hopes aren’t high. Much political thinking is constrained to four year electoral cycles, as this tends to bias policy towards short-term mollification rather than long-term amelioration. The Fuel Price Escalator was scrapped in very similar circumstances. and I will be very surprised if the government, in it’s current dire situation, holds firm.

P.S. If anybody more mathematically adept feels like explaining how to adjust these figures for inflation, I would be very much obliged.

By way of an interesting addendum, The Guardian published an article today (9/7/08), reporting that the cost of motoring has decreased by 18% in real terms since 1988:

The cost of filling a car with petrol has more than doubled over the past 20 years, but the cost of running a car has fallen considerably in real terms, a report claimed today.

Almost 60% of the 1,116 people taking part in the RAC’s annual report on motoring said they thought the biggest change over the past 20 years was a rise in cost.

In fact it now costs 18% less in real terms to buy and run a car, including fuel costs (and 28% cheaper excluding fuel costs), than in 1988. Meanwhile, the cost of petrol has more than doubled in real terms.

Adrian Tink, motoring strategist at RAC, said that contrary to public perception: “Cars are more reliable now, they go wrong less, and so the cost of upkeep is lower. The fall in the cost of buying and owning a car has been a fairly smooth curve over the past 20 years.

Measuring Emissions: Per Capita or Per Country?

Much has been made of the recent news that China is now the world’s biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, and the headlines will no doubt provide ammunition for those who would prefer to prevaricate indefinitely when it comes to reducing our emissions here in the West.

Climate campaigners like myself normally respond to this by pointing out that, when measured on a per capita basis, China’s emissions, although growing fast, are still dwarved by our own. This, combined with our greater historical responsibility means that the main burden of cutting emissions still lies with us.

However, this view warrants a closer look, as it leaves a couple of issues unexamined.

We don’t need the Washington Post to tell us that “behavior [...] is largely determined by structural factors, not personal choices”, but we would do well to keep it in mind when we think about the usefulness of considering emissions on a per country basis. If we accept that the structures created by government policy will be significant determinants of a country’s emissions, it becomes possible to construct a tenable argument for allocating at least some state-based responsibility for emissions, as policymakers in each country have a relatively high degree of control over the emissions of their entire population.

This, however, is to disregard yet another layer of the issue which brings us back to the per capita argument: even if we were to assume that governments could exercise complete control over their country’s total emissions, they would still be splitting this figure among radically different populations, and it is here that the per capita arguments take their force. We can best understand this by thinking about the quality of life implications of imposing an immediate 50% emissions cut on the Chinese economy, in comparison with the same cut in the USA. Even though the total cut from China would be larger, the costs in terms of human happiness (or ‘utility’, as I will no doubt be calling it after a few economics classes) are vastly different.

So which measure should we use? I think it largely depends on what is being discussed at the time. However, it seems pretty clear to me that like-for-like comparisons of countries’ emissions without any reference to population differences can only ever be misleading, and should be avoided wherever possible.