Monday, March 29, 2010

Earth Hour: the tyranny of Gaïa?



Version longue:

Before 1972 (first European environmental action plan), there was darkness in Europe. The nation-state, its citizenry and industries were blighted, selfish polluters not paying due care to “Mother Earth” (Gaïa) and its creatures. And then there was light, green light that is, switched on permanently by a common environmental policy (Single European Act, 1987). Or so goes the official tale. Curiously with the Earth Hour, the friends of Gaïa were asking us to celebrate darkness again, quite literally by switching off our lights for an hour in an absurd ritualistic global communion against progress.
.
The organiser of this initiative, the World Wildlife Fund trumpeted success. In France the national electricity company EDF observed a mere 1% decrease in electricity consumption, a situation that can surely best be explained by the fact that only the modern day followers of the cult of Gaïa - the “greens” - and, their new priesthood - NGOs, experts, politicians - heeded the call. Environmentalists have been influenced by James Lovelock’s “theory of Gaïa” which claims that the earth is a single living organism. Unperturbed by the fact that many scientists view it as little more than a neo-pagan new age religion, environmentalism regards Man and modernity (notably energy production and consumption) as a “disease killing the planet”.
.
The controversial hypothesis has influenced the “deep ecology” movement and is a foundation stone of political ecology in the Western world. It has had a profound impact on governance and policy-making in Europe. As academics like to point out, the environmental policy is the perfect example of Jean Monnet’s neo-functionalist method of integration through “spill-over” in other sectors. Hence the green policy has “stealthily” grown in size and is now on its 6th Environmental Action Programme (2002-2012). Addressing climate change, nature and biodiversity, environment and health, natural resources and waste, it basically permeates all aspects of policy-making, and by implication, of our lives.
.
Apparently we should only be grateful. Questioning the scientific or moral foundation of green economic integration and cultishness is considered politically incorrect. If you do, you are treated as barking mad or ignorant. When your “scepticism” comes out of the closet, you fall into the category of the “bag guys” or deniers. The “good guys”, namely the green experts are a bit like the Navi people in Avatar. They “commune” with Mother Nature and know best. Armed with the absolute Truth, they preach the cult of Gaïa in its less extreme form through policies, laws, campaigns and by resorting to climate alarmism to impose their “noble” cause on the masses.
.
Of course, the European Union is not the utopian planet of Pandora. Behind the official discourse of “legacy to future generations”, (green) greed, power and interests play an important part. Organisations like the WWF are friends with big corporations. Greening one's conscience has a price: donations. The friends of Gaïa also have many friends in Brussels and receive public funds (EU budget) whether taxpayers approve or not. As the recent International Policy Network study “the Friends of the EU" revealed, green advocacy groups like Friends of the Earth, Birdlife or WWF (the so-called big 8 or 10) receive plenty of funds to lobby for more funds and provide environmental expertise to the Commission. The researchers concluded that “sponsoring the narrow interests of such NGOs undermined the democratic process”.
.
Politicians have embraced the green dogma with gusto. When the French government recently scrapped its carbon tax plan, the socialist politician Michel Rocard crossed a verbal Rubicon by calling this decision a “crime against humanity”. The proposed tax promoted by environmentalist leaders with no democratic mandate is in fact opposed by a majority of people (59%). The Secretary of State for ecology declared herself “distraught” by the setback, prompting some bloggers to comment that too much ecology on one’s mind could be a mental health hazard... Rest assured that the proposal will be pursued with a vengeance at supranational level in one form or another. The proverbial democratic deficit of the EU has served Gaïa well.

.
Eco-cultishness is relentless. A friend of mine (No. 34 left) is passionate about off-road motor biking and takes part in amateur races in rural Brittany. His idea of a fun time keeps the local bike shop in business. On racing weekends, the villages burst into life with competitors and support team-families. It is festive, noisy and definitely not carbon-emission free. These armour-clad, mostly middle-aged male weekend-bikers stand accused by the local “écolos” of riding the planet to eco-Armageddon. The green fundamentalists call for a ban but the slow regulation of this activity out of existence is the most likely outcome. The friends of Gaïa with friends in the EU can avail themselves of eco-directives they lobbied for and helped draft. The quasi sacred 1979 Birds Directive springs to mind. Surely there must be a few feathered creatures they could find and whose rights are infringed.
.
European NGOs, like the migrating birds they care so-much about, are not stopped by borders. Driven by a missionary spirit, they are fighting to impose “sustainable development” in the name of Gaïa everywhere possible. In Ethiopia for example, a “coalition of the irresponsible” (NGOs including WWF) is campaigning to stop the government’s project to build the Gibe III dam which would bring progress to millions. In a recent article, Nathalie Rothschild, the editor of Spiked-online, makes a compelling case against “green madness”. She notes that “the needs of the Africans are clearly not a priority for environmentalists. … They are more concerned about preserving the biodiversity of the Omo river than lifting its people out of abject poverty”. In 2010, 70pc of Ethiopians are still unable to switch on a light and the friends of Gaïa would like it to stay that way.
.
Environmental protection and nature conservation should be based on reason, not cultishness. I kept my lights on during "Earth Hour" and celebrated human achievement, progress and the pursuit of happiness in all its forms.

Friday, March 26, 2010

The French elections that changed nothing.

French people take democracy seriously when there is a stake and a sense that their ballots will make a difference. Politics is endlessly debated with passion, especially over good food. But for the second round of regional elections, half of the electorate chose - again - to linger over lunch. In the search for explanations for this mediocre turnout, pundits are invoking the usual suspects, i.e. the rise of the left and a sanction against the ruling party (UMP). No one seems to be considering that many voters might have found it more rational not to vote to elect councillors whose job it is to oversee a decentralised bureaucracy with reduced fiscal powers and plagued, like the rest of the State, with worrying levels of debt.
.
The facts are compelling. 21 of the 22 metropolitan regional councils now have left-leaning majorities (Parti Socialiste and Europe Ecologie). The overall results (including the resurgence of the far-right Front National) are clearly humiliating for the UMP but it should not be forgotten that they also mirror those of the 2004 regional ballot. Using a rugby analogy on the weekend the national team had won the six-nation-tournament, analysts were quick to point out that the Left with its electoral tsunami had not succeeded in “converting the try” in the 2007 presidential elections. The leaders of the victorious side, Martine Aubry (PS) and Daniel Cohn-Bendit (EE) are jubilant. But no-one is fooled, least of all the electorate, who know too well that in a highly centralised state like France, the real power lies at the centre, Paris.
.
Still, regions matter and the socialists love them. Since their introduction in the current form during the Mitterrand years (1984 Law on decentralisation, 1986 first direct elections), the Left has been the dominant force of this extra layer of the proverbial French administrative “mille-feuilles” (like the cake, with many layers). Regions have acquired competences in the fields of economic development, education, transport and culture. Over the years as budget expanded and local taxes increased, the Regional Council has become a nexus of considerable power and influence. In a region like Bretagne (Brittany) with a strong sense of cultural identity the President presides over a deliberative assembly of 83 councillors and a small executive. Importantly, he administers a budget of €1.1 billion (2009, population of 3.1 million) supported in this task by a large bureaucracy, namely 3500 agents spread across the four departments. The state-appointed regional governor (Préfet) nevertheless remains in law the most powerful authority.
.
France is a rich patchwork of cultures but historically regionalism has never sat comfortably with the Jacobin tradition. With the creation of the regions, critics have observed that the State has only paid lip-service to decentralisation by simply inserting another costly layer of administration, effectively co-opting local political élite into the national political class. For the economist Emmanuel Martin, the regions illustrate the root-problem of the French style decentralisation. He argues that the model has had to counter excessive centralising forces which in turn led to the establishment of a jungle of local spendthrift fiefdoms with no real fiscal or budgetary responsibilities. The mounting debt of French regions - €25 billion by 2012 - has the Fitch Ratings agency worried (1). Ultimately regions are only accountable to their pay-master, Paris, not to the citizens. From a rational choice theory perspective, it makes sense not to vote.
.
For all the democratic hullabaloo (at a cost of €136 million), many would agree that under the supremely absurd system of “cumul des mandats” which sees politicians holding several elective mandate complete with the cumulative sum of privileges and remunerations, regional elections matter more to the political class than to the citizens. As journalist Yvan Stefanovitch puts it in his thought-provoking book “La Caste des 500: Enquête sur les Princes de la République”, France is ruled by a caste of 500 professional politicians who, be it in their local fiefdoms or at national level, exercise quasi regal powers and live well at the State's expense. Every six years, the “new feudal lords" (an expression borrowed from the essayist Roland Hureaux see "Les nouveaux féodaux. Le contresens de la décentralisation") joust for the control of local administrations and a well-established system of clientelism
.
The Socialist Party Secretary General - the Soviet Union collapsed but not the socialist utopia and its paraphernalia - Martine Aubry is a prominent member of the French nomenklatura. The daughter of former socialist and federalist commissioner Jacques Delors, she sponsored inter alia the economically disastrous 35-hour-week law. On promises of safeguarding the social acquis, saving the public services and redistributing a lot of solidarity, she has made a credible political comeback. How resorting to more statist policies will help resolve the ominous deficit and debt is not clear. While disaffected voters abstained, the SP’s traditional support base (employees of the state sector, 1/5 of the labour force and workers) massively mobilised during the elections. The all-powerful unions with their well-rehearsed disruptive capacity can be trusted to launch public sector demonstrations to obtain concessions from a ruling majority weakened by an electoral "Bérézina" (defeat).
.
Ironically, although elected on a platform of liberal reforms with notably promises to downsize the state and create a favourable environment for the private sector, Nicolas Sarkozy has championed more state intervention in the economy and extravagant public spending (2009 stimulus plan: €39.1 billion. 2010 state loan: €35 billion). In the meantime, unemployment has continued to rise. The ruling party's political discourse is not socialist but by and large, its policies have maintained “l’état providence” (Nanny-state), the very model hailed by the Left. In France, be it at the regional or national level, “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.” (2)
.

(1) Journal des Finances, 22 March 2010 http://www.jdf.com/indices/2010/03/22/02003-20100322ARTJDF00036-la-dette-des-regions-francaises-sous-surveillance-.php
(2) "The more things change, the more they stay the same"

Wednesday, March 10, 2010