There are also more principled problems, including the assumption of a second offense, which slightly undermining the notion of innocent until proven guilty. There is also a question of misplaced priorities; why does the government always jump to scale back the liberties of offenders, rather than addressing the deep, underling problems that lead to the offense in the first place?
News today that climate change is going to kill off all the little fishies off Alaska. The rise in atmospheric CO2 leads to a similar rise in the ocean where it forms carbonic acid and thus reduces the alkalinity of the water making it hard for various species to operate. This ending up with a reduction in fish as the lower parts of the food chain suffer. The part of all of this that we might have difficulty getting our heads around is that there’s a known technique to deal with this problem: it’s just that the UN insists that we don’t use it. Odd that we’re not actually allowed to do something that will mitigate both climate change itself and also alleviate one of the effects of it.
The story about the fishies is here:
Alaska’s fishing industry could soon be threatened by increasing ocean acidity, says an NOAA-led study to be published in the journal Progress in Oceanography. The acidification is due to increasing carbon dioxide release, which is absorbed by the ocean
Molluscs, such as the aforementioned Red King crab may struggle in acidic water, and find it difficult to maintain their shells and skeletons. As well as this, it has previously been shown in studies that Red King crabs die in highly acidic water, and both it and the Tanner crab grow more slowly in acidic water.
Alaska is particularly threatened by ocean acidification for a number of reasons: cold water will absorb more carbon dioxide than warm water, communities in certain parts of Alaska, namely the South-East and the South-West are reliant on fishing, and there are fewer other job opportunities in these areas than other parts of the state.
OK, is there anything we can do to deal with this?
When a chartered fishing boat strewed 100 tonnes of iron sulphate into the ocean off western Canada last July, the goal was to supercharge the marine ecosystem. The iron was meant to fertilize plankton, boost salmon populations and sequester carbon. Whether the ocean responded as hoped is not clear, but the project has touched off an explosion on land, angering scientists, embarrassing a village of indigenous people and enraging opponents of geoengineering.
The iron did fertilise plankton, there was an algal bloom, fish numbers increased and at least some of that carbonic acid was removed from the local waters, all at the same time. There was even some amount of the CO2 being deposited as nascent rock on the ocean floor and thus it being sequestrated for geologic periods of time. All in all it sounds like a most wonderful technology really, doesn’t it?
The project was also on uncertain legal grounds. Ocean fertilization is restricted by a voluntary international moratorium on geoengineering, as well as a treaty on ocean pollution. Both agreements include exemptions for research, and the treaty calls on national environment agencies to regulate experiments. Officials from Environment Canada say that the agency warned project leaders in May that ocean fertilization would require a permit.
Other than this, probably illegal, experiment the last official one was done 10 years ago. It’s just great that everyone’s working so hard to find even a partial solution to what we’re generally told is the greatest problem of our times, isn’t it?
We’ve spoken to one of those who studied, in detail, that last official experiment and there’s no doubt that it works, would be extremely cheap and is capable of not only increasing fish numbers but also of sequestering some 1 gigatonne a year of CO2 into rock. But the powers that be won’t let anyone actually do it and there are no further officially approved experiments in the pipeline either. It’s almost as if people don’t want solutions to climate change, isn’t it?
Biteback Publishing have published a new biography of Clement Atlee. Authored by Michael Jago, it explores what motivated Atlee and drove him to become one of the most influential of Labour Party leaders.
Atlee had a remarkable record in putting through his programme. In 6 years he achieved major structural reform of Britain’s economy and society. He is thus to be admired dispassionately as an effective Prime Minister. What he also did was to teach us all an important lesson: Socialism doesn’t work. While other European nations were renewing themselves after the destruction and exhaustion of a world war, Britain wallowed in nationalization and allowed its industries to stagnate and decay under state ownership and control. He left a country impoverished, heading down a slope that left it diminished, impoverished and ineffective. Only in 1979 did Britain begin to shake off his influence, change direction, and once again climb back to prosperity and significance. Atlee left a legacy that lasted, it is true, but it was a legacy that left his country ruined for decades.
It was an important lesson, though, and one we learned again just 25 years ago when the Communist empire collapsed and left exposed not just the terror that had sustained it, but the squalor it had concealed for so long. Socialism doesn’t work and never has done because it goes against the grain of human nature and the desire of peoples to make free decisions that can improve their lives and better the lives of others in the process.
We can only hope that people will not only read the new book about Atlee, but that they will also remember the lesson and the years of suffering that it took to learn it.
The suggestion put forward yesterday by ResPublica think-tank that we can restore consumer trust and confidence in the financial system, or prevent the next crisis by requiring bankers to swear an oath seems excessively naïve.
Such a pledge trivializes the ethical issues that banks and their employees face in the real world. It gives a false sense of confidence that implies that an expression of a few lines of moral platitudes will equip bankers to resist the temptations of short-term gain and rent-seeking behavior that are present in the financial services industry.
In fairness to ResPublica’s report on “Virtuous Baking” the bankers’ oath is just one of many otherwise quite reasonable proposals to address the moral decay that seems to be prevalent in some sections of the banking industry.
I don’t for a moment suggest that banking, or any other business for that matter, should not be governed by highest moral and ethical standards. Indeed, the ResPublica report is written from Aristotelian ‘virtue theory’ perspective that could be applied as a resource for reforming the culture of the banking industry. ‘Virtue theory’ recognizes that people’s needs are different and virtue in banking would be about meeting the diverse needs of all, not just the needs of the few.
The main contribution of the “Virtuous Banking” report is to bring the concepts of morality and ethical frameworks into public discourse. Such discourse is laudable but we should be under no illusion that changing the culture of the financial services industry will be a long process. Taking an oath will not change an individual’s moral and ethical worldview or behaviour. The only way ethical and moral conduct can be reintroduced back into the banking sector is if the people who work in the industry were to hold themselves intrinsically to the highest ethical and moral standards.
Bankers operate within tight regulatory frameworks; the quickest way to drive behavioural change is therefore through regulatory interventions. However, banking is already the most regulated industry known to man and regulation has not produced any sustainable change in the banks’ conduct. One of the key problems with prevailing regulatory paradigms is that regulation limits managerial choice to reduce risk in the banking system, rather than focuses on regulating the drivers for managerial decision-making.
Market-based regulations that do not punish excellence but incentivize bankers to seriously think through the risk-return implications of their business decisions, will be good for the financial services industry and the economy as a whole. A regulatory approach that makes banks and bankers liable for their decisions and actions through mechanisms such as bonus claw-back clauses will be more effective in reducing moral hazard at the systemic level and improving individual accountability at the micro level than taking a “Hippocratic” bankers’ oath.
We’re just so terribly fortunate to have another entrant in the non-think tank stakes here in London. Welcome to Philip Blond and ResPublica!
The last time we looked at these two and their proposals they were suggesting that this Social Credit idea from Major Douglas might be a good idea and then hinting that perhaps Belloc and Chesterton were pretty good economists too. At least one reviewer of this combination pointed out that this was in fact the Fascists economic program: and the real Fascist economic program, not just the usual insult to be bandied about for anyone you don’t like.
Recovering from this they’ve made a new suggestion:
An oath for bankers should be introduced to raise accountability and standards in banking, said the think tank ResPublica.
It said the lack of public trust in banking after numerous scandals was an “ongoing concern” for the industry and the government.
In a new report, ResPublica called for an oath for bankers to “fulfil their proper moral and economic purpose”.
Well, yes. We know very well that nearly all people in modern society live in mortal fear of being an oath breaker, don’t we? Most unlike olden days when no one believed in an afterlife of the threat of the devil waiting to boil those who broke their word. Most unlike. And of course Harold Shipman would have been stopped in the tracks of his rampage if only doctors did take that Hippocratic Oath.
But maybe Blond has actually got something here. Think how many choirboys would be unsullied if only the Catholic Church insisted that priests took an oath of chastity?