Keeping the lights on

George Monbiot’s latest column (originally published in the Guardian) analysing UK electricity demand and supply raises a number of issues.

George modestly says he is not qualified to carry out this analysis. I’m not any more qualified, but I suggest it is only the facts that require expert input, not the analysis itself, a large part of which is simply a matter of addition.

I’ve spent some considerable time since buying yesterday’s Guardian poring over the numbers and I feel I have to gently chide George for his presentation being even more confusing than necessary.

I suggest that a clearer approach would be to consider first the total amount of power that the UK can generate by renewable means.

Then let’s consider what would need to be done to ensure that peak requirements can be met. This should include what measures can be taken to reduce the peak consumption.

Finally we should think about what spare capacity is necessary.

1. Power generation capacity
According to the DTI the UK currently uses about 400,000 GWh of electricity a year. I do not share George’s optimism that this can be significantly reduced. Currently it is increasing. We should also not consider electricity generation in isolation. In particular, solutions to reduce CO2 emissions from the transport sector are likely to require increased electricity generation, either to power public transport or to power cars directly or indirectly (if electricity is used to produce hydrogen, for example). I suggest that we assume instead that we can maintain this demand at a constant level.

From the figures in the article the UK could generate power as follows:
· 100,000 GWh from offshore wind;
· 58,000 GWh from onshore wind;
· 53,000 GWh from wave power;
· 36,000 GWh from tidal stream machines;
· 24,000 GWh from tidal lagoons;
· an unknown amount from sunlight;
· 17,000 GWh from willow plantations;
· 6,000 GWh from hydro power;
· 5,000 GWh from landfill gas.

That is, a total of 299,000 GWh + solar. Not too bad at all.

I’d like to make a few points, though:
· I don’t buy into any of the supposed limitations on expanding offshore wind power electricity generation beyond 100,000 GWh per year. GM notes that “shallow water with a firm seabed” is required. Surely this is just an engineering problem – why can’t they be built on floating platforms, for example? We seem to be able to overcome similar problems to extract oil from the most hospitable environments. I suggest that with sufficient market demand this problem will be solved. The need to stay out of the paths of migrating birds is debatable and of military exercises just lame. Furthermore, on the internet I find a report Sea Wind East report by AEA for Greenpeace. This stated (in 2002) that by 2020 84,000 GWh of offshore windpower could be produced from the resources of East Anglia alone! Elsewhere on the Web I find the UK’s accessible wind resource estimated at 340 TWh, i.e. 340,000 GWh pa. Can anyone comment on the true potential for wind power generation in the UK?
· the production of 17,000 GWh pa by 2030 from willow plantations is just not going to happen. Apart from being ecological barbarism, I calculate that this will require a minimum of 400,000 hectares of suitable land. This is presumably in addition to the 1.25 million hectares required to meet the UK’s Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (see GM’s article “Fuel for nought”, Guardian 23/11/04, also available online on his site as “Feeding Cars not People”). I suspect some double-counting as DEFRA statistics suggest there are only 680,000 hectares of set-aside land in the UK. The 5.7 million hectares mentioned in “Fuel for nought”, refers to the total arable land in the UK, all of which (it seems) is being used to grow crops or has been rotated to pasture (or is fallow). We need to eat. Furthermore, the willow will require fertilization, herbicides and (inevitable in a monoculture) pesticides. It also requires huge amounts of water. Quite apart from all this, in the limited time I have had available, my internet surfing suggests that those countries, such as Canada and Sweden, where willow is currently being used for power are at least 10 years ahead of the UK in trialling specific varieties, but still at a scale of 1,000s rather than 100,000s of hectares. In most cases the production of willow seems to be a by-product of using the crop to get rid of polluted water. Besides all this, isn't there a good chance the climate will change significantly during the 25 year lifetime of the crop, shortening its useful life and undermining the viability of the investment? Indeed, if this were a financial investment, my advice would be “avoid”.
· we need to understand the potential of local electricity generation using solar power and wind turbines. Can anyone comment on this? [It is a non sequitur in GM's article that electricity from sunlight should not be counted because ... "it isn't produced when we need it most" as he goes on a couple of paragraphs later to assume the development of energy storage facilities].

OK, so we’re 101,000 GWh short, (or 118,000 if we forget the willows).

2. Peak capacity
Apart from the absolute amount of power we can generate, we also have the problem of meeting peak demand, as GM stresses in his article. It seems to me that this problem is not totally insoluble.

First, the article is mistaken when it says: “The need for spare capacity could be greatly reduced if we managed demand rather than supply…”. In fact it’s the peak that would be reduced. (The need for spare capacity will instead depend on the technologies used.). Matching of demand to supply must clearly be investigated. For example, according to DTI figures, the biggest single industrial user is the chemical industry, at 23,000 GWh per annum. How much of this could be moved to times when sufficient power is available? Remember, the supply of wind-power is predictable in advance.

Second, it should be noted, as Graham Sinden of Oxford University points out, that the profile of wind energy production matches demand reasonably well: it peaks in winter and during the day, for example.

Third, we already manage peak demand in two ways: we use pumped storage facilities and we import power. According to DTI figures, pumped storage is 75% efficient, so George is being pessimistic when he assumes 50% efficiency for storage. Could such facilities be expanded? Even if expensive, wouldn’t this be more desirable than building nuclear power stations?

Importing and exporting power seems an even more attractive method of smoothing out peaks and troughs in supply. Over a large enough area the wind will always be blowing somewhere. It seems an expansion of international power transmission infrastructure has not been sufficiently allowed for. The whole climate change debate is conducted as if it is a separate problem for each individual state. In fact, it’s a global problem and requires global solutions.

3. Spare capacity
As we’ve already seen, the need for spare capacity will depend on the technologies used. It seems to me that, because nuclear power generation is “lumpy” – with a few facilities each generating vast amounts of power- and the safety concerns so serious, a solution with a high proportion of nuclear power will require most spare capacity, to allow for power stations to be closed for maintenance for long periods. It may also be necessary to allow for unplanned maintenance. Conversely, wouldn’t the need for spare capacity be much reduced if we rely more on renewable energy?

Conclusions
I have no over-riding objection to nuclear power. After all, we’re already importing electricity produced using French nuclear power and a nuclear accident in France is likely to affect me in the south of England at least as much as one in Scotland. Like other forms of power it is risky, and these risks need to be taken account of in a full cost analysis. Such analyses seem to show that it is an expensive way to generate power and even if it did make us self-sufficient, this is a mistaken objective: we have to trade to survive anyway. I also understand there are not unlimited supplies of uranium ore. We need to factor into our calculations what happens to costs if there is worldwide construction of nuclear power stations over the next 20 years or so. The numbers suggest to me that before we make a decision we must get a better understanding of the potential for electricity generation by offshore wind power. An exercise should be carried out to consider what we would do if we couldn’t build any new nuclear power stations.

Even if we do opt to build more nuclear power stations, there are several steps which can be taken to reduce their number:
· extend real-time pricing mechanisms to better match demand to supply;
· invest in facilities to store power, for example further pumped storage facilities;
· invest further in international power transmission infrastructure.

I’d certainly like to see a clearer analysis before I concede that it’s necessary to build more nuclear power stations.

Finally, there’s really no reason why one of most densely populated places on the planet (the UK) should be self-sufficient in power. I’d hate to think that we’re building nuclear power stations because politicians find that an easier solution than building infrastructure to ensure that renewable forms of power can be fully exploited - and perhaps having to do deals with other European countries!

In praise of... logic

A Guardian editorial (sorry, "Leader" - hmm, "take me to your Leader") today laments the drop in numbers of physics A-level students. Just in case we're confused it helpfully notes that physics: "...deals with the constituents of the universe on which other scientific disciplines such as chemistry and biology depend." That doesn't mean you have to study physics in order to study those subjects (or IT, engineering etc.) though, does it? As anyone who has read the laughable, sorry, acclaimed, "Critical Mass" by Philip Ball, will be well aware, physicists now consider themselves a race of superior beings simply by dint of having studied a particular subject. And the Leader goes on to support them: "There will continue to be a great need for physics graduates in industries ranging from computer games (which attract top brains because of their complexity) to nuclear power, if the government, as reported, adopts a new nuclear building programme to combat greenhouse gasses." Love it. And is that the "top brains" that are complex or the computer games? If it was August or the skiing season I'd assume the editor was away and an intern (to reluctantly adopt an Americanism) was writing the editorial, sorry "Leader".

SteelyGlint suggests that perhaps it would be preferable for students to study logic.

Consider Zoe Williams' column on the previous page, which begins: "Two things have happened in the world of the wonder web. First, it emerged that Nigeria's third-largest source of hard currency, after oil and cocoa, is revenue from internet scams. I don't believe it, not unless its oil reserves are paltry, or it's selling its cocoa dirt cheap." No, Zoe dear, if Nigeria's oil reserves were paltry or its cocoa dirt cheap then revenue from internet scams might well be Nigeria's second-largest source of hard currency. If both its reserves were paltry and its cocoa cheap then internet scams might be its largest source of hard currency. How did this get past the sub-editor?

For the record I read on, as I caught a mention of eBay, a subject which interests me. Zoe seems to conflate the issues, though. The internet auction business model, over which we have allowed eBay a virtual monopoly - obviously we want to pay another tax - relies fundamentally on trust between buyers and sellers. eBay enforces this through its feedback mechanism (this is the innovation), but also through the courts. And a good thing, too. Though obviously not a reason to ignore the ancient dictum caveat emptor ("let the buyer beware"), as I think Zoe is trying to say.

Slight digression there, as today's Guardian was a vintage edition, with perhaps the single most nonsensical letter I have ever seen. Don't bother with the link: it's worth quoting in full:
"Going cold over taxation reforms
It is regrettable that Charles Kennedy has not yet seen the light on the 50p tax rate (Kennedy plans policy shift on taxation to woo floating voters, November 19). Aside from the usual arguments about taxing aspiration there is the point that those earning £100, 000 or more are those most able to influence their own remuneration. On the day after this policy is implemented they will have been hit by a tax rise of up to £1,000 for every £10,000 over £100,000 they own. They will demand or execute wage rises that compensate them for the tax rise. Those rises will be extremely disproportionate because for every additional £1 rise, there will be 50p going to the government. So far from contributing to social justice, the 50p rate makes inequality even worse.
Andy Mayer
London"
Hard to know where to start. Andy Mayer should be reassured, though, that in his fantasy world inequality would not be made "even worse", because , oh stuff it... the letter's drivel.

Kennedy has not yet ditched the idea of a redistributive tax, but has said he wants to be on the tax middle ground. Sigh! None of them, Tory, Labour or Lib Dem make any sense. I don't wake up on Monday morning and say to myself: "I think I'll have a middle-spending week". No, I buy this and that, have a couple of meals out and as a result I spend less, more, or about the same as average. Or, if I see I'm going to spend more money than I want to, then perhaps I'll stay in one evening. It's nonsense, this "we'll tax less than you" politics. OK, often one party (when in Opposition, of course) will say they'll spend the money "more efficiently". I think we all know that's tosh. Attempting to maintain the same level of provision whilst imposing spending cuts simply means deferring expenditure (rail, tube and building maintenance can always be pushed into the next 4 year term) or reducing the quality of services (2 year waiting lists, anyone?). So, Charles, what are you going to spend less on?

"90 days", 12 days on revisited: aye, there's the rub

To quote Shakespeare!

In my previous post, I noted that Blair is playing a long game, but the media have a much shorter time horizon. The problem, of course, is, though, that we have what in science would be termed a "participant observation" problem; to put it another way, media predictions of Blair's demise could become self-fulfilling. Strictly, Blair just needs to keep the PLP (Parliamentary Labour Party) sufficiently onside to remain capable of running a government, able to win any vote of confidence by a sufficient majority, etc. But in the real world MPs are influenced by all manner of other interests, in particular by the media. They could be egged on to ditch Blair before his time is otherwise up. The danger to our democracy is that the short-termism of the media becomes the only show in town.

New Labour's strategy has been to accept the power of the media and try to control it. I suspect this won't be possible a second time. If we're ever to have a government that addresses the ever-growing inequalities in our society (and globally), at some point that government will need to tackle the in-built biases of our political system towards vested interests. The media, of course, are a key part of our political system.

Looking back over the last 25 years or so, it's interesting to see how little fundamental change Clinton and Blair - both political geniuses - have been able to achieve. What might be even more instructive would be to also look at the areas Thatcher and Reagan wanted to, but were unable to influence. For example, even they didn't reduce the size of the state as much as their rhetoric would have you believe they wanted to.

Meyer-faced cheek!

Having been out of circulation for most of the weekend, I hadn't really caught up with the latest developments when I wrote my previous piece on the Meyer affair. I later read that Prezza and Ian MacShane have laid into Meyer. Scary! One point caught my eye. Meyer has apparently promised to donate the serialisation rights for DC Confidential to charity. Not his fees and royalties for the sale of the book itself. Of course, the serialisation will only promote sales of the book. Getting paid for the serialisation was just the icing on the cake. And, the real Meyer-faced cheek is that his wife is employed, according to MacShane, with a salary of £34K p.a. (for how much work, I wonder?) by one of the charities. Will the government we've just elected be able to get rid of this dishonourable "fop" (um, what does that word mean? - I see, "dandy" according to my Concise Oxford)? Anyway, I'd love to be proved wrong, but I doubt even the entire government acting with unprecedented unity of purpose would be able to shift him. We don't really want to be ruled by the people we've chosen, do we?

"90 days", 12 days on

SteelyGlint is hugely enthused by an edited version of his piece on "the new commentariat" being quoted in the Guardian's "How the bloggers saw it..." column on Saturday (it seems this is only in the print edition). If he'd realised this particular rant was going to be so widely read he might have been more thoughtful. The fact that the mainstream media "get their facts wrong continually" is not, on reflection, a primary cause of the problem. Rather, it is a symptom of their short time horizon, which has many other effects.

This led me to reflect on the "90 day" vote, lost by the government less than 2 weeks ago. At the time we were treated to a new wave of speculation that Blair would soon hand over to Brown. Yawn! The dissonance between what the press was saying and what I was seeing with my own eyes (thanks to the BBC News 24 & Parliament channels) was painful. Blair looks to me like a man in control, as he should be with a renewed mandate. He's not the tired, haunted figure of 2003, during the run-up and early days of the Iraq war.

And let's look at the 90 day vote itself. Blair forced a vote on this issue, but what was his alternative? If he'd proposed 60 days, or 42, or anything more than 28 he may still have lost. Then how would the Government have looked? What did he gain by forcing the vote, though? I saw several comments in the BBC's "Have Your Say" forum from people swearing never to vote Conservative again. Blair may not have managed to split the Tories in the House, but he may have undermined some of their support in the country.

But I think Blair gained in other ways as well: most importantly he's been able to size up the rebel problem (as well as draw their fire: some will be reluctant to rebel again, wanting Brown, if not Blair, to trust them sometime in the future). I've seen something similar done effectively in business, when pushing a team to meet timescales. If you go for broke and fail, you take a short-term hit, but may also learn what you have to do to succeed. A weak Blair would never have been able to do this. What's more he's done it early, which is also important.

My comment on the BBC's "Have Your Say" [which incidentally they managed to lose before failing to respond to my query about the problem - never again] was to the effect that the "90 day" vote may have reflected parliamentary opinion, but only by accident! Many Labour MPs probably voted for 90 days against their better judgement, and almost certainly many Tories voted against it despite theirs. Hardly an advert for parliamentary democracy, as many claimed in the aftermath of the vote. Quite the opposite. The public, I suggest, will only have limited tolerance of Parliament becoming an exercise in defeating the government for the sake of it (by the opposition parties combining forces and allying with Labour rebels) rather than a forum for debate according to what the parties believe in (which is admittedly becoming ever more obscure). I suspect Blair senses this. The Tories obviously do not. I was staggered that they blew more capital by organising a vote on the licensing bill: not only contradicting their stance before the election but also leaving their likely new leader looking foolish (see here & here, for example). It should be put off until after the Christmas season: pathetic!

And Blair has bailed out his Home Secretary. Clarke made a pig's ear of this, but there hasn't been a murmur about his position. And now I think of it, he forced Brown into a public show of support.

No, the 90 day vote was a sign of Blair's strength, not his weakness. He knew he was playing a long game: the media were looking only a few days ahead.

Chancellor lands one on Meyer!

Regular readers will remember that I previously had a bit of a go at Alexander Chancellor. I won't take back what I said then, but I have to note that Chancellor has made an Ernest Saunders' like recovery from whatever was ailing him then. OK, let's not overdo it, one swallow doesn't make a supper, but his piece in the Guardian this week was a rather amusing dig at Sir Christopher Meyer, in fact it was a Howe-like dead-sheep savaging!

Chancellor's was just one of at least 3 articles on Meyer in the Guardian on Saturday. Joel Rickett notes in a column on the publishing industry that: "Sir Christopher argues that civil servants should be able to fight back against claims in books from former ministers and advisers - Mo Mowlam, Clare Short, Robin Cook, Lance Price." This is disingenuous nonsense. It is politicians the public can hold to account, politicians they are interested in. Of course there are exceptions, such as Alastair Campbell, but even he was a political appointee, not a civil servant. There is no sense in which Meyer's book represents a quid pro quo. Has he personally been slagged off in any political memoirs? I suspect not. [It occurs to me that perhaps Meyer sincerely believes this argument, perhaps it is a symptom of his obvious arrogance].

In another article in the review section, Ian Jack considers whether Meyer remains fit to be chairman of the PCC. It turns out the PCC itself explicitly stipulates: "that the PCC chairman 'must not be engaged in or, otherwise than by his office as Chairman, connected with or interested in the business of publishing newspapers, periodicals or magazines'." Seems like an open and shut case to me.

What bothers me as well are issues of Meyer's integrity and ability to act as an independent arbiter: consider not only the contents of his book, but the very fact that he's written it. I could go on (so I will!): I understand his book was released - coincidentally no doubt - just after his PCC contract was renewed; I find it curious that his wife is very active in the Conservative Party; and I wonder how much work he did for the PCC while writing his book. [SteelyGlint finds even this blog a distraction as well as preparation - or practice - for his magnum opus].

But the main reason Meyer should not remain as chairman of the PCC is he's just not the right man for the job. Controlling the Press is an important role. It needs someone who is going to stand up powerful editors and drive through implementation of a code of conduct, particularly to ensure the independence of the political process - someone with cojones. Ian Jack notes in his piece that: "[the PCC's] biggest worry is the introduction of privacy legislation." This is a huge area of concern: it seems to me the lack of effective controls in this country over invasions of privacy must be a disincentive to those considering a career in public life, which cannot be a good thing. The PCC is meant to be a (self-)regulatory body: by the sound of things it is acting less in the public interest and more like an industry lobby group.

Coca Cola crime!

The story of the Mexican corner-shop owner who sued Coke made my day yesterday. Hee hee hee!

I have to say admit I might feel a bit differently if I liked their product (in fact it makes me feel a bit queasy) but I first started my anti-Coke campaign when I was in Ecuador. I'm not a charity, but when I'm visiting places I like to think much of my money is going to help the local economy, particularly in places like Ecuador where there are large numbers of displaced, disadvantaged people. Even though a proportion of them seem to be very keen to rob me. I also like to experience things I can't get at home: even soft drinks, though to be honest I get more excited about the local beers and wines.

Anyway, back to the story. The restaurants in Quito offer water with your meal. And guess who makes (or at least owns the brand of) the only water on offer? Yeap, Coca Cola. Bon Aqua, I think they were offering. So the dollar I was paying for each small bottle was at least partly going on keeping Coca Cola executives (and Warren Buffett) in the style to which they've become accustomed.

As I travelled the world I started trying to avoid Coca Cola products. It's not always easy (especially if you try to avoid Pepsi as well). In Estonia, for example, I was proudly drinking a local product only to be told that Coca Cola had bought the company that produced it! I'm informed that the kiosk guys in Tallinn just did what they were told when Coke gave them fridges and told them they couldn't use them for drinks from other suppliers (why is this practice legal?; is it legal?). [Funnily enough, as local companies copy Coke, there is now a proliferation of fridges in some places: I remember one store in a small town in Estonia with no less than 3, 2 of them for drinks from particular suppliers, the third for everything else!].

When we looked at the "Cola Wars" during my MBA I was naive enough to suppose that Coca Cola and Pepsi are so dominant simply because they've spent so much on advertising over the years (building up "brand equity"). It turns out, though, that this is only part of the story. It was also exclusive (read anti-competitive) deals with bottlers (that is, local drink manufacturers and distributors) that led to the dominance of the duopoly in the US. They have both repeated this strategy throughout the world. Curiously their strategy includes supplying the concentrate, so when Coke moved into supplying water they've stretched the envelope and done the same thing. Bon Aqua and Dasani are manufactured, not spring water.

Yesterday I read that the EU is asking for more powers to rule on mergers within countries. This is good news as it seems the only world body (barring perhaps the Chinese government) that has the power, will and understanding to really promote competition. Today's Guardian leader, for example, comments on Nellie Kroes' (the EU Competition Commissioner) ruling on English Premiership football rights (what a day it was!). According to the football club chairmen this is the end of the world, but I believe it's in the best interests of the fans and, in the long term, the game.

I'm sure the public perception of what drives capitalism is that key is competition between companies. But in so many areas there is hardly any competition. The existence of so many sheltered near-monopolies doesn't bode well for "Western" economies as China and India get going.

Support for eagle owls

Tried out a search on Technorati for the first time (I'm new to this) and spotted someone else who clearly feels the same as I do.

Eagle owls

Did you see the nature documentary about eagle owls on Beeb 2 last night? These amazing birds have started to recolonise the UK after being hunted to extinction a century or two ago. Well, probably, there were some commentators given airtime on the programme who claimed the bird was not native to the UK. One was I think from the British Ornithologists' Union, the other from the RSPB.

These morons are somehow able to ignore the fact that these birds can cross the North Sea before breakfast. They're all over northern Europe. Why wouldn't they come here? The very fact that they can survive here shows they belong here. They fly at 40km/hr. They can go where they like.

Besides that, there are documentary records of them having been in the UK up to the 19th century. Not definitive enough proof, though, for some people, apparently. And that might mean they're not legally protected from those disgusting individuals who think they have the right to destroy an entire species.

I'll tell you something that is definitely not part of the natural ecosystem. People making value judgements about what animals should be allowed to survive, that's what.

Apparently, though there was no evidence of this in the programme, the owls might endanger other bird species that are protected or in low numbers. Well, I'm sorry, that's how nature works. Animals eat other animals. The numbers of any species depend on a balance based on how much they manage to eat and how often they get eaten (among other things!). The best way to have a variety of wildlife is to allow complex ecosystems to develop. Not just rabbits and foxes. And to have big enough areas of wilderness. That way, everything survives somewhere (and has somewhere to go if predators arrive or conditions change - if it gets warmer in the south they can go north).

SteelyGlint reckons he can see through the pathetic excuse of a human being from the British Ornithologists' Union, in particular. He's making decisions as a birdwatcher, not out of any ecological insight or understanding. That is, he just wants the countryside to be full of the particular things he wants to see. Sick-making.

Here's a couple of points for these narrow-minded twit-chers to bear in mind:

(1) Our ecosystem in the UK has hardly any predators - none of a decent size (probably the eagle owl is now our most powerful predator). That's why, as could clearly be seen in the documentary, the grass was 1/2 inch long, and rabbits were running around everywhere waiting to be eaten. In Holland, the habitat around the eagles was practically a forest. Our towns and cities are overrun with pigeons because we won't allow a few hawks to live there. I took my Estonian better half to the New Forest recently and she couldn't believe how overgrazed it was. It's not really a forest, more somewhere a Hobbit might want to live. If we had some wolves and bears, say, the forests in the UK would be much more interesting (and store much more carbon).

(2) With global warming what can live here is going to change. Factor that into your English idyll. We might - actually we will - have to introduce (because we're an island) animal species and see what survives here. Otherwise we might end up with nothing more than a few snakes in 100 years or so. And we'll be shooting any birds that arrive as "non-native", "invasive" species.

Why do people blog?

Interesting article, titled "The New Commentariat", in G2 (part of the Guardian) today discussing political bloggers & why they do it. Caused a lot of chatter: at Harry's Place and elsewhere.

This isn't what the article actually says, but I'm convinced "the new commentariat" has arisen because of deep dissatisfaction with the dynamic of the mainstream media. How can we characterise this?

(1) They get their facts wrong continually. By way of example, yesterday I felt driven enough to write to the Independent about the "Environmental Map of the World" they included with their print edition. Australia, one of the world's worst carbon emitters is shown as one of the least bad - the box is yellow, when it should be red, like the US. (And I put some more about this chart here). So far the Indy don't seem to have taken any notice of my complaint. And I keep meaning to get round to dropping a note to the Guardian about this TV review article. Completely factually wrong: they write that: "Breakfast is generally a live rat snake...". Actually in the programme the "nut" who is (heroically in my view) trying to save these magnificent creatures preferred to feed his snakes on dead rats. I could go on. As long as these papers don't libel anyone they don't have enough incentive to simply get things right. Pages to fill up, deadlines to meet: they just write any old rubbish.

(2) They have great power in our electoral process. "It's the Sun wot won it". And the arrogance to make use of it. After all, it's very difficult to get a job as a journo or at the BBC. So the opinions of those who are there must be more important than anyone else's mustn't they? Perhaps by misleading headlines and pushing their views as "news" they are sowing the seeds of their own destruction. The bloggers could end up taking on some of the current role of the mainstream media.

(3) They are victims of groupthink. The BBC is the best and worst example. They cherish their "independence" and claim this is important for the political process in this country. But they are not an umbrella for independent thinkers. Instead they have developed their own ideology, and have their own line on issues. And they have no self-awareness of this - as evidenced by the hubristic Greg Dyke and pitiful Gavyn Davies, who would have been out of his depth in the shallow end, not swimming with the sharks.

This is why the political bloggers are disproportionately "pro-war" left, as reported in the article. With very few media organisations each having developed their own organisational culture and view on the war, important views are just not represented. Passages of the article are fascinating, as we have now reached the point where at least the Guardian (especially now that Julie Burchill and David Aaronovitch have moved on) is deep in confluent groupthink. Get this: "How all these feelings metamorphosed into support for the war is harder to discern: it sometimes seemed as if the leftwing hawks, out of distaste for some aspects of the anti-war lobby, were propelled by magnetic repulsion to a default position of support for the war that didn't always ring true." What??? The writer seems to assume they are right, and these people are temporarily deranged. All analysis has disappeared. Blair lied and took us to war because he wanted to steal Iraq's oil. Or whatever.

Cojones

Not written too much over the last week, owing to a preoccupation with biofuels and climate change. Instead, I've been doing a little bit of research. My conclusion so far is that we're screwed and most people seem to be in denial. Including the self-appointed opinion formers in the media (funny how what started out as mediums of communication now have so many opinions of their own). Oh, and ignorant: get this from the Grauniad: "the [F1] cars should switch over to engines running on ethanol: a grain-based fuel, biodegradable and emitting no carbon dioxide." Not quite.

Did you notice this piece in the Guardian, which began: "You are unlikely to have heard of Gazprom..."? This started me thinking. This was discussing a fund in which readers may consider investing. Those readers who are so ignorant they haven't heard of Gazprom. Hmm. I'm beginning to get a glimmer of understanding as to why I have to indirectly fund people who have been "mis-sold" endowment mortgages and personal pensions. Are we developing a culture where people are assumed to be ignorant? Yet we have media who tell us what to think. But they have no responsibility to present a true picture. These media themselves, who, what with deadlines (and probably staffing levels cut to the bone like most businesses), are permitted to be sloppy. Where, exactly, does responsibility for getting the facts right actually start?

Maybe I should write to the PCC and ask. But the chairman of this ineffectual organisation is none other than Sir Christopher "Solomon" Meyer. I say "Solomon" as somehow, in the famous passage, he knew that "he may have been the only member of the waiting British team who understood this [cojones] meant balls." I may be the only person reading the Guardian's Money section who's heard of Gazprom, but somehow I doubt it. Perhaps Sir Christopher is just revealing - how shall I put it? - his breath-taking arrogance. I particularly loved the bit where he "cursed [himself] afterwards for not piping up." As if he could have thereby brought about a second UN resolution. The monkey thinks he's the organ-grinder.

I read all the Meyer extracts in the Guardian, and entertaining as it was (and a breach of trust, by the way - don't buy a used car off this man, he'll tell the world what a sucker you were), I was left wondering exactly what Blair - supposedly the same Bliar, who decided with Bush in 2002 that this war would happen - had done wrong. Simon Jenkins is closer when he says: "Blair had no leverage on Iraq with Washington's neocons - but, like Wilson over Vietnam, he did have a choice." In my view Blair chose - but not in one momemt, rather by a series of many, many decisions over several years - to get rid of a dictator and maintain the UK's historic alliance with the US, because those were his and the government's foreign policy objectives. He neither wanted to, nor would have been able to, stand up to the forces of history. I happen to think that many of the complex causes of dramatic world events are systemic. The reasons are embedded in systems of behaviour, deeply rooted in the past and not simply subject to change by the will of single individuals, however powerful they and we think they are. This war, I believe, was inevitable the moment the planes hit the Twin Towers, and probably had been since the unfinished first Gulf War.

"The media" don't need to maintain a consistent line as to what Blair did wrong. They can lay into Blair one week for having been scheming and the next for having been ineffectual with the Americans. And they can spin all they like, all the while accusing the government itself of spinning. How about the Guardian headline on Monday 7th November: "Blair's litany of failures on Iraq - ambassador's damning verdict". How do you justify that? Sells papers better than: "Civil servant disagrees with PM (who should know) about extent of UK leverage over US foreign policy."

I'd like to think the Guardian is well-meaning and at some level attempting to be objective in its reporting (that headline is not headed "Comment", though). It gets more amusing when we get to papers like the Evening Standard (which I buy because it has a monopoly, as I will keep insisting on reminding everyone). On Monday 7th, they reported (on a "News" page) not only that the former ambassador made a "withering critique" (really?), but also that "Mr Blair wore trousers so tight he had to get changed." This may be true, but it's not what Meyer wrote (at least in the extracts). The trousers he changed were on another occasion when he realised his were too casual: no-one else was wearing jeans.

But that distortion and inaccuracy is nothing compared to what the columnists can get away with. In the same edition of the ES, Peter Oborne writes: "Our Prime Minister would go into a meeting with the President armed by his advisers with a list of concessions that needed to be won and never even raise one of them." Having read reams of Meyer's supposed revelations I see nothing to suggest this. Where did Oborne get that? Perhaps someone can direct me to a passage in Meyer's memoir that suggests such an interpretation, otherwise I guess I'll have to assume Oborne just made it up.

Biofuels are a good idea?

Saw this story in Monday's Guardian. Francisco Anselmo de Barros, a leading environmental campaigner, set fire to himself in protest at an expansion of biofuel production in the Mato Grosso region of Brazil. Hmm, hasn't our government just announced a "Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation"? Almost totally unquestioned by our media.

In fact, this is not a good idea, far from it. It will lead to disaster. It takes no account of the amount of land required (some millions of hectares for the UK's needs, that is tens of thousands of square kilometres - 10,000 square km is an area 100km by 100km - that is about 60 miles by 60 miles). Not only does this ignore concerns about the impact on biodiversity in the UK, it will in fact have the opposite effect to that intended. Land being used to produce biofuels cannot be used for forests, which both store huge amounts of carbon, and are part of nature's way of slowly removing carbon from the atmosphere. Biofuels are just a way of meeting the letter, but not the spirit of Kyoto - and of maintaining an economy based on burning carbon fuels rather than technology based on renewable ways of generating electricity.

10 Things... no. 4: nuisance calls

I've just been called by Supreme Promotions (unfortunately not the Supreme Promotions who apparently promote music events in the Caribbean). I didn't stay on the line very long, but I know, because they've called me before, that they sell double-glazing. Last time, in fact, I told them in (what I now realise) was my smarmiest manner, that I wasn't going to answer their questions (they dress up their sales pitch as a survey). This succeeded in provoking their caller, and a slanging match resulted (it hurts, yes, but I can't help also being amused that someone in a call centre, selling, yes, I repeat, double-glazing, can call a complete stranger a "loser"). Just what I wanted first thing in the morning. Anyway, it didn't take long to find them on the internet (this site lists a few other great firms I may have to mention again). Seems to me they are ignoring the Telephone Preference Service, though some comments here (out of date?) suggest the service doesn't do what I think it does. Either way, what are TPS (and Ofcom etc.) doing? Don't they realise the cost of these ridiculous calls in peoples' time? (I read that it takes 15 minutes to get back into "flow" after having your concentration broken).

I even got called by the reputable NOP organisation (though now taken over by some other firm) at Sunday lunchtime(!!) a week ago. All sorts of excuses - my number must have "slipped through" (defying much of computer science), the call was not covered by TPS provisions, etc. - then an apologetic manager on the line, all of which left me totally confused what their policy was. According to the TPS site if I don't want unsolicited calls I shouldn't get them. Why aren't we getting tough with these companies? Why aren't their executives and directors being served with ASBOs?

Remember, remember the 7th July?

So fun and games continue on the streets (and here) of Paris and many other French cities. I remember the aftermath of the 7th July bombings, when it was all our fault in the UK, partly for the way we had (allegedly) failed to integrate Muslim immigrants. Many said we should be following similar policies to those in France. How does that look now?

The truth of the matter is that the history and social traditions of France and Britain (or any 2 European countries, for that matter) are so different that what works in one will not necessarily work in the other. No, each must solve the problems of integration in its own way.

Incidentally, a Horizon documentary recently looked at the psychology of suicide bombers, showing how small group behaviour and loyalty to the group could have led to July 7th. OK, but that's not the whole story. The idea to do it must come from somewhere. In France of course, there is rioting rather than suicide bombing, spurred by the same sort of disaffection and feelings of isolation. Horizon also looked at a 2nd generation immigrant effect, but omitted to note the obvious point that almost all the bombers they identified (in Israel, US 9/11 & London 7/7 and 21/7) were under 30. They claimed their "'bunch of guys' theory is a vital breakthrough in understanding the mind of suicide bombers." Sure, but the anomie (a more correct term than "alienation") that leads to violence and self-destruction can also be expressed in by membership of cults or political groups, social group behaviour such as drug-use, gangsterism, football violence, etc or resolved by "normal" behaviour such as joining the army or police or a corporation... It's not new. What is new is the cult of the suicide bomber. This is what must be condemned more strongly, not "understood" (a la Cherie Blair). At the end of the day those celebrating this behaviour are sending young men from their community to die and to kill people from another (or in the case of London, their own) community. This ideology is what must be universely condemned.

While I'm back on all this, the Guardian I see is still repeating... over and over the myth that Blair claims "that the war has not exposed Britain to terrorist attacks". As I keep saying, Blair and Straw have not argued anything of the sort. [What they in fact say is that even without the war we would still be a target, the problem of Islamic terrorism would not just have gone away, there would be another justification for any attacks, which is not the same thing at all]. To deny any link at all would be daft, but then according to the press (and BBC) politicians are all, to a man, stupid, incompetent liars seeking only personal gain. And of course, that's much more likely than that they are a mixed bunch of people (most of whom could earn much more more in business without the ever-present risk of character assassination) with the common characteristic (shared by many journos, incidentally) that they have strong views on how society should be organised.