Political Earthquake?

The result of the European elections was described by the French Prime Minister as "an earthquake".  Every article I have read has its own analysis and, as always, we are in danger of paralysis by analysis.  What does the apparent anti-European swing, notably in France and the UK, really mean?  Well, let me give you a personal view.  I believe what we have recently witnessed is a symptom of a disaffection by voters with politics and politicians.  The state of the world economy can at best be described as fragile and individual nations are experiencing varying degrees of economic discomfort.  This is particularly evident in Europe where 26 million are out of work.  The widespread austerity programmes continue to leave a bitter taste and frankly, a large proportion of the population is totally pissed off!

Now, in my opinion, the reason many people do not have faith in politicians, or indeed the political system, is because promises of economic recovery fail to materialise.  Why?  Well maybe it's because what is being promised is never achievable.  We are being seduced by the promise of economic growth and I don't know of any political party that would have the balls to shy away from that commitment.  Yet to believe in perpetual growth on a finite planet, one must be mad or an economist!  But because most leaders haven't taken that fact on board, the world's economy is in a state of rebalancing, which essentially means the richer developed countries will take some pain, whilst the poorer developing countries will see some gain.  Now that seems logical to me yet no politician will ever admit it and consequently nations try to fight it.  We produce things we don't need merely to create employment and demonstrate economic growth.  In the process we deplete valuable natural resources and pollute the atmosphere.

So in my opinion the result of the European elections is not necessarily people saying they want to be in or out of Europe, but people protesting against their lot with a capital P.  Let's be thankful that the European protests are mainly through the ballot box rather than on the streets.  People are not stupid and they really care about issues like poverty, housing, food security, wealth distribution, atmospheric pollution, etc, etc, etc.  How we organise ourselves to tackle these issues is far less important than understanding the solutions.  Outdated political ideologies, dogma and rhetoric are boring.

So let these election results be a wake up call.  We need to be honest about the global issues, what needs to be done and the impacts on our personal situations.  It's not going to be easy but with good, strong leadership, based on honesty and transparency, there must be a sporting chance of success........we'll see!

Keep Out - It's Mine!

As I continue to grumble daily at world events - yes I really am a grumpy old man! - I realise how the root of so many conflicts is PROPERTY.  People, groups of citizens, nations claiming OWNERSHIP of something tangible, like land, or if you really want to be wacky, intangible, like software.  The French anarchist, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, coined the slogan "Property is Theft".  In his 1840 book 'What is Property?', he wrote:

"If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder, my meaning would be understood at once.  No extended argument would be required....Why, then, to this other question: What is property? May I not likewise answer, It is robbery!, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first?"

There have been many debates about Proudhon's philosophy and there is inevitably a natural reaction to individuals accepting the premise that they don't OWN anything!  We were all fortunate to be born on this planet.  However, some were more fortunate than others to have been born in prosperous locations.  Whilst others were very unfortunate to have been born into communities where poverty and starvation are rife.  To a large extent the different environments are man-made by successive territorial claims over many generations.  So we now have a modern world with territorial boundaries established by homo sapiens and only respected by homo sapiens.  Within these national territories the planet's resources are used and abused by humans in accordance with some haphazard rules of ownership.

As I write this blog post, I am gazing across MY garden.  I know it's MINE because it has boundary fences and nobody can enter without my permission!  But having said that, there are many creatures in MY garden - birds, hedgehogs, geckos, snakes (yes, we've got those!), land crabs (those as well!!), insects, bats, lizards........to name but a few.  Do they know they are in MY garden.  No they don't and why should they?  It's as much their garden as it is my garden and without them, as well as the trees, plants, shrubs and other life forms, the place would be empty and sterile.

The bizarre thing about human ownership is that we assign a monetary value to our possessions.  It is quite likely that scarcity of land, property, or both can drive prices upwards.  So the monetary value of our property can increase through no effort on our part.  But one person's gain is another person's pain and as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and life's lottery for survival continues unabated.  The tension between rich and poor, haves and have-nots, increases conflict and provides excuses for war........and we think that's civilised!

If I were a bird or a fox or a squirrel, and I viewed the antics of human beings, I would probably be impressed at their collective intelligence and achievements, but amazed at their arrogance and selfishness.  Somehow the mindset of ME and MY has to give way to WE and OUR, where the latter embraces ALL life on OUR planet.

Is this Utopian nonsense?  Unfortunately it probably is, but only because our arrogance and selfishness permit it to be.

Parting is such sweet sorrow.

We've just had family to stay with us for a few days.  The visit was not without a few problems.  We can usually guarantee wall-to-wall Turkish sunshine at this time of the year, but it wasn't to be this time!  Our guests arrived in a thunderstorm and the weather remained unsettled throughout their stay, reverting to blue skies and sunshine on the day of their departure.  The second spanner in the works, was the fact that my wife and I were suffering from a bug, which meant that neither of us were our normally bubbly selves.  Then to cap it all, on the day of departure one of our guests noticed that one of her ears was missing a diamond earring that was normally attached.  At the time of writing and after much searching, it still hasn't been found.  But despite all these problems, we had a great time!

When you're excited about a planned event, it is only natural to want everything to go well so it is disappointing if there are negative forces like the ones I have described.  But if the relationships are strong and resilient, then the positive forces will far outweigh the negative forces.  So the ability to ride the storm is, in my opinion, a test of how any group of people relate to each other, regardless of whether they are family, friends, colleagues or acquaintances.

I believe that the real test of a relationship is the feeling experienced when saying goodbye.  "Parting is such sweet sorrow" is a line from the play Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare.  Juliet is saying good night to Romeo.  "Sweet sorrow" is clearly an oxymoron, but it can describe a feeling experienced by people who have strong feelings for each other and know that any separation is not forever.  So there is the sorrow of parting but the sweetness of knowing that they'll meet again.

We're a funny old species we humans!

Myopic Thinking

When I watched the news on TV this morning, I saw an item explaining Europe's vulnerable position with respect to gas supplies from Russia, particularly in the light of the crisis in Ukraine.  It was explained that about 50% of Europe's gas comes from Russia.  The country-to-country variations are quite significant.  For example, 80% of Bulgaria's gas, compared with 0% of the UK's gas, comes from Russia.  OK, I get the message, Europe is concerned about energy security.  But then the news report became somewhat bizarre.  It was suggested that the G7 energy ministers were considering ways of reducing the dependency on Russia for gas supplies.  Ah, I thought, maybe this is the opportunity to accelerate the use of renewable energy sources.  But no, what was being proposed was a network (the gas equivalent of an electricity grid) to link the European countries, so that, for example, fracking gas from the UK can feed into mainland Europe, as well as imported gas (also from fracking) from the USA.

This displays all the symptoms of myopic thinking.  A hopefully short-term relationship problem with Russia, over its stance towards Ukraine, has triggered Europe and its American ally to invest in a very expensive and long-term programme to cut off Russian gas imports - a classic example of knee-jerk political thinking.  But what's most disturbing is that even though carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, at greater than 400ppm, should be a real cause for concern, the G7 energy dumbos are planning to invest to exacerbate the problem.  Surely the current crisis in Ukraine should, if nothing else, be a catalyst for every European country potentially affected by the supply of gas from Russia, to put real effort into becoming self sufficient on energy from renewable sources?  The technology is available, so what's the problem?  It is probably cost.

Gas is grossly under-priced, because the costs do not include the premium that should be paid by the producers for the damage to the planet.  Those costs will currently be picked up by future generations.  I don't know how to quantify fossil fuel damage.  Maybe it's not possible.  In which case the simple rule should be, use renewable sources wherever it is possible, regardless of the acquisition and support costs.  Naive thinking on my part?  I don't think so.  Political myopic thinking benefits only the individual politicians and not society at large.  The use of economic justifications to support their actions is misleading and dangerous.  There is no shortage of man-made money, but the natural defences to combat atmospheric pollution are demonstrably beginning to fail - look at the continuous reduction of the Arctic ice cap.

So let's not get carried away with the current European energy crisis.  Al Gore once said:

"As many know, the Chinese expression for 'crisis' consists of two characters side by side.  The first is the symbol for 'danger', the second the symbol for 'opportunity'."