Misuse of Technology

This week, in the news, we have seen a number of misuses of technology as demonstrated by the following:

The Prime Minister, of the UK, was wired up with a portable microphone which was not switched off when he made private disparaging remarks about a voter he had just met. The private comments were then broadcast to the world. Then, afterwards, the Prime Minister was filmed by a television camera, in a Radio studio, whilst his words were played back to him by surprise. Of course, pictures of him hiding his face were then broadcast to the public.

There was a court case, where a teacher was acquitted of the attempted murder of a pupil who had been badly misbehaving. He had been deliberately stressed by the pupil, in question, and his classmates as part of a ruse to film classroom mayhem with a hidden video camera.

A prospective member of parliament, for the UK general election, allegedly used twitter to broadcast the results of the count of postal votes before the election proper. This is in contravention of UK election law.

There are some lessons for all of us here.

Lets take the case of the Prime Minister. The purpose of the microphone was to help journalists hear what the PM was saying in public; not in private. Surely, it was a breach of faith to publish his private comments, the press knew that he was not making public remarks. Whether you like the Prime Minister or not or agree with his politics or not, this should not have happened. The point was made that the PM or his aides should have turned the microphone off, but it is easy for anyone to make a mistake. With regard to the Radio interview: what was a television camera doing in a Radio studio? The whole point of Radio is to broadcast sound content only; if you introduce television cameras into the studio you might as well abolish the medium of sound once and for all. There is already too much television content on the airways and most of it is rubbish. The television pictures portrayed the PM as if he was hiding his face in shame. But, he could just as well have been concentrating on the playback of the recording. The whole event in the radio station looked as if it had been stage managed to ensure maximum embarrassment.

With regard to the teacher; the pupils' attempts to secretly film his embarrassment badly misfired and the consequences could have been even more tragic for all concerned. No doubt the pupils were hoping to broadcast the teacher's demise on a social web site.

I can only think that the prospective MP pressed the send button before she had engaged her brain. I have often done this myself and I have had to go back and edit these blogs to correct spelling mistakes because I have forgotten to use the spell checker or I have pressed the "publish" button, rather than "save", before I have proofread the wonderful words of wisdom. But, back to the election: what was the council doing counting the postal votes before the actual day of the election? They could have saved the prospective MP a lot of trouble and potential legal action.

The world is full of wonderful inventions which could, if used with thought and care, save us both time and effort. However, their misuse is causing more and more problems, or should I say challenges, which require far more time and effort to resolve than the original problems they were being used to fix. And, you might get more than you bargained for.

Take the example of email: I make a point of reading my email once a day in the evening; therefore, there is no point in sending me an email during the day which requires attention in the next five minutes. The purpose of any form of mail is to allow the recipient time to think before they answer. If an instant answer is required; use the the telephone or text.

Spreadsheets were designed for accountants and bookkeepers to add up figures. They were not designed for verbal or visual communication. When they are used to draw up plans or write reports they are a disaster. They have too many boxes which cannot be read easily and are often filled up with useless irrelevant information. They can be dressed up with fancy colours and they are style over substance gone mad. If you have got to include a table, in your written communications, then use the table function in Word; it does not allow you to use too many boxes so you have to crystallise your thoughts.

Blackberries must be one of the most misused inventions of all. How many times have I received an unintelligible email message from someone on a train or at an airport. The whole idea of spending time out of the office is to give you time to spend with your family or friends or just to think and rest and be more creative. Twenty four hour working just makes you tired and you become unproductive when you are "at the the office" during normal working hours.

Portable phones should be used with equal care; whenever I managed project teams I always encouraged staff not to 'phone me at home unless there was a real emergency and not if they were unable to find a line in a report or a task on a planning Gantt chart! They used to say to me, "what happens if something goes wrong ?" I used to say, "what happened to Christopher Columbus when something went wrong?" He thought of a solution himself: he did not have time to wait for the pigeon post to report back from the King. We all perform better when we have to think for ourselves. My team mates thanked me for it afterwards.

There is a general theme running through all of this, and it is all about time. The journalists can not wait to get a report. The politician cannot wait to get the election results published. The pupils cannot wait to see the teacher making a fool of himself on a social website. And there is another theme; none of us, politician, pupil, blogger or worker seems to have time to think before we act or make fool's of ourselves or worse still do something which provokes anger or danger.

So what should we do about it? We should think about how we did things before our wonderful inventions existed. Only make use of them when they really add value to social or business activity. Plan your actions as if these tools are not available all the time.

Well, when we arranged a meeting we had to plan the social or business occasion well in advance and we had to have a contingency plan if someone failed to turn up. We had to make more of an effort to keep our promise to be there on time. There was no portable 'phone to make last minute arrangements. We took a map and planned our route.

When we used to manage our projects, we spent a long time planning and making contingencies for when things went wrong. We had to think our way out of difficult situations as we could not contact our bosses or more experienced colleagues as easily.

We had to give ourselves time to breathe and to use the best tool available: that was our brain which was not designed, solely, for "just in time" usage. In fact it was not designed at all, it has evolved into a marvellous all purpose, creative, reasoning, social and business tool.

When we use our computer tools and mobile devices effectively we make time for thought , planning, reasoning and effective social interaction. If we misuse them, we can create disharmony and dysfunction.

Please make time to think about the consequences of your actions before you press the button on or off. Make the world both more kind, more productive and more healthy.

Nuclear Bombs

I can clearly remember the missile crisis of October 1962, when Soviet Union vessels carrying intermediate range rockets were heading for the the US fleet which was blockading Cuba. Fortunately, the Soviet Union backed down and decided not to "run the blockade". The fear of imminent war was palpable and the whole of the world faced the prospect of nuclear annihilation. The memory of these events still chills me. I remember the three minute warning which Britain would have received if the nuclear weapons had been unleashed. We all left for school in the morning wondering whether we would see our parents again.

No crisis since, short of actually being involved in a war, has matched this for the sheer fear that it provoked that the whole world would end.

During the seventies and early eighties we were"treated" to government propaganda about what to do in the event of another nuclear crisis and how to plan for it- Protect and Survive. There were suggestions to keep a supply of food and water and diagrams showing you how to build an ersatz nuclear fall out shelter in the living room.

Being a natural sceptic, I realised what rubbish it all was:there is no real way to protect yourself from a nuclear bomb or the fall out, chaos and disease that would result from a nuclear war.

My plan was to find the place a nuclear weapon was most likely to hit and end it all quickly.

How did the human species ever indulge in the irrationality and madness of inventing these kind of weapons? What will happen if they fall into the hands of another Hitler or a bigot full of hate?

Aliens

Professor Stephen Hawking has suggested that we avoid contact with any alien beings that we might discover. He is of the view that it is "perfectly rational" that intelligent life could exist elsewhere. It is quite possible that life exists on other planets within our solar system or other star systems within the Milky Way. There is, however, no hard evidence and it is pure speculation whether any kind of life exists anywhere else other than the earth.

SETI ( the search for extraterrestrial intelligence) has been scanning the heavens for over a decade and have found nothing. Any intelligent life could be tens of light years away.

Even if intelligent beings were on another planet it would be very difficult for them to travel across many light years to get to earth. It would not just be a technical problem; it would cost them a lot of money and resources and it may not be worth the investment to come here. There would probably be enormous social and psychological difficulties to be overcome. Who would volunteer for such a long journey? They would probably send a robot. I doubt that we will ever meet an intelligent alien face to face.

Vatican Troubles

Once again the Vatican is getting itself into all sorts of problems: now it is with the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It really should have kept quiet about the musings of a "junior" Foreign Official when he or she attended a brainstorming session. The whole idea of a brainstorming session is to think the unthinkable or the bizarre to assist problem solving. There would have been no intention to publish these ideas and certainly no intention to insult anyone, let alone the Pope. The idea of a brainstorming session would probably have been to make the Pope's visit better. The Vatican should "get real" and move into the modern age.



Imagine what would have happened if an official had lampooned the Pope in the 14th century; the humorist would probably been tortured to death. This is why we are lucky to live in a secular society: there can be no punishment for those who criticise or make fun of religious or political organisations.



The Roman Catholic Church and other religions should also be thankful that Britain is a secular society. If Britain were to become a theocracy again, no doubt the Church of England would reign supreme and if it obtained absolute power it would not be favourably disposed to Roman Catholics, Muslims, Hindus or even Baptists etc. The coalition of the faiths to attack secularism would, also, then be quickly disposed of by the newly powerful Church of England and we would go back to the attitudes of the 16th and 17th centuries and woe betide a Roman Catholic, Jew or Muslim.



Our secular society has guaranteed the civil liberties of all of its citizens including those of faith and those of us who are agnostics and atheists. I do not know why any religion in Britain should feel that it is under attack from either the British state or its non-religious citizens. There is really no need to be sensitive about some simple lampooning conducted in private.



The Vatican should stop trying to muffle criticism and put its house in order regarding crimes against children, holocaust denial and discrimination against homosexuals. The Vatican should also celebrate the fact that a secular society is still prepared to welcome the Pope despite the cover ups, denials and prejudice. Would a theocracy ever be that tolerant? I don't think so.

Holocaust Denial

I do not believe that free speech should be limited by fines or imprisonment, but I can understand why Holocaust denial is such a sensitive issue in Germany and Austria. I would like bishop Richard Williamson, however, to explain why he believes that the Holocaust did not happen.

There is more than ample evidence that the Holocaust took place, and not just from the distressed testimony of eye witnesses.

No doubt, because he is a Roman Catholic bishop, Williamson believes in god. There is no verifiable evidence that a supernatural deity exists.

Why, therefore, deny the existence of the Holocaust when there is solid evidence, but assert the existence of god when there is none. Surely, opinion and belief should be informed by the facts.

I aver, that the historic consequences of, what was possibly, the greatest crime in history should not be trivialised by anyone who is unable to interpret evidence or lack of it correctly. It is time for the Vatican to act and resolve this issue.

Perhaps, the world would be a better place if we based our opinions on some form of observed facts rather than belief which denies the evidence.

3D TV

This is the television set that I watch: it is a 19 inch Samsung. There is no HD and definitely

no 3D. Suppliers are now trying to ship 3D televisions, in time for the world cup, for more than £1,800. I was scanning the numerous channels on Freeview the other night and could only find one channel that I wanted to watch. The rest of the channels were either showing rubbish or looping through 24 hour news. Most of the content was not being broadcast in either HD or 3D, so why should I bother to spend £1,800.

I do not go to football matches very often, and the last time I went I saw West Ham United play Manchester United. It was live and very much in three dimensions. The one thing that I noticed, from a perception point of view, was that the footballers were running very much slower live than they appear to be on TV. The twinkled toed star of MU did not look so impressive. The West Ham team quickly neutralised the highly paid "dribbler" and went on to win the match 2-1. Somehow the football did not look so special . Now, with Rugby Football, it is a different story but maybe I am prejudiced.

Have I become so used to seeing sport on television that I am disappointed when I see the real thing? Has anyone else noticed the difference? Is it the electronic medium providing the entertainment rather than the content that is broadcast. Will the 3D television world be equally disappointing?

Eventually, 3D television sets will become so cheap that everyone will be watching them, including me. Coronation street will still be rubbish, however, and the endless repeats of Dallas will still retain their faded quality. We will still be paying for style over substance when it comes to programme content.

As for the football, we will soon be treated to players diving and shirt pulling in full HD and 3D. The histrionics and false displays of pain will become more exaggerated. The endless discussions about whether a player was off-side or the ball over the goal line will still continue in the studio: 3D television might result in them going on forever. Now, with Rugby Football this will not happen but maybe I am prejudiced.

Green Thinking on Climate change and Population

I have just read the Green Party election manifesto on climate change and population.
With regard to climate change, the policy is for the UK to reduce CO2 emissions by 90% by 2030.This means that by 2030, and on average, each person in the UK must reduce their CO2 emissions from 9.5 tonnes to about 1 tonne per year. By 2030 the UK would then be emitting 60 million tonnes of CO2 per year rather than the 570 million tonnes at present. It is claimed that this would be Britain’s contribution to the Global effort to stabilise but not reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Each year the population of the planet increases by about 83 million people. Even if each new person were only to emit 1 tonne of CO2 per year, in 2030, the UK’s contribution would be totally wiped out. The figures are not favourable.

The contribution of Britain’s greenhouse emissions to global warming is described well in George Monbiot’s book “Heat. The book also proposes a technical solution, to reduce the UK’s Carbon CO2 emissions by around 90%, to meet the deadline.

I have little doubt that dangerous global heating is imminent. It could strike us, within the next thirty years or so, and surprise us with sudden and unpredicted changes when it does. What would happen, if the Northern latitudes were to freeze for a hundred years or longer, whilst the rest of the planet warms up, even more, to maintain a new balance of energy and temperature? Do not think that this cannot happen because similar climatic changes have happened in the past - at the end of the last ice age- when CO2 levels were much lower than they are now. If you are not convinced that global warming theory is correct then read “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer R Weart.

The problem, that I have, is how are we to going the make the political, economic and social changes needed to achieve CO2 reductions. I also take issue with the reasoning that steadying global emissions will, in fact, halt the global warming that we have set in train.

From a political point of view, most people remain to be convinced by the science and are unconvinced that we must take action. They find it unacceptable that their standards of living or life style should either be reduced or altered to meet the demand for reduced emissions.

The IPCC has failed to convince the general public that their climate models are able to predict the future. Their predictions that the climate and weather will warm up in a gently sloping curve so that we can intervene when it gets a little bit hot are clearly wrong. So, when a cold winter occurs in the Northern Hemisphere, it becomes increasingly difficult to convince the public that global warming is in fact taking place. The Kyoto agreement has failed to reduce CO2 emissions significantly and the Copenhagen conference failed completely. Getting world agreement is a tremendous problem so, if the world cannot agree to a Global solution, how do we expect voters in the UK to agree to the major changes that such drastic reductions in CO2 emissions demand? Who in Britain wants to forgo their car, foreign holiday and new consumer goods when they see other major countries, including China and India, increase their emissions. The argument that “you where the original ‘polluters’ so you take all the hits”, may be justified, but it does not impress voters either in Europe or the US. Let us face the facts.

We need a fresh approach to both IPCC and Kyoto- like conferences. I fear that it may not be possible, in an open and free society, to convince voters to reduce their consumption while all the confusion reigns. To achieve the reductions required, politicians may have to resort to an unpalatable compulsion that would need to be imposed globally. What chance is there of that happening?

From an economic point of view, we need to completely change our economic model; from one of free and easy travel, cheap farming practices, “just in time” production and supply techniques, built in obsolescence and cheap consumer goods, to the reverse of it.

We also need to impose taxes on fossil fuels and change the whole system of the supply and demand for fuel. I do not believe that taxing emissions, just in the UK and developed world, will reduce emissions globally. Making UK fuel more expensive will reduce demand in Britain but decrease the price on world markets. Poorer countries who cannot afford the luxury of “green” energy, will then “take up the slack” by consuming more fossil fuel at the reduced price.

We have seen the disruption caused by the recent credit crisis and changes are required to regulate the financial system to prevent a future meltdown. The economic forces opposing this are enormous and international agreement may take years to implement. Just changing the financial system is difficult enough; so how are we going to change the rest of our economic system, in the time required, without impoverishing both the developed and developing world?

Britain could weaken its economic position if we were to incur the costs of converting to alternative energy whilst other countries do not. The government and people of Britain would not allow this to happen.

There are a number of issues to be solved related to our belief systems. Many writers on the problem of climate change comment that CO2 gas is a pollutant. It is not. If there was no carbon dioxide in the atmosphere most of the plant and animal life on the planet would die. If there is too much in the atmosphere, as there is on Venus, all life would die out completely. It is a question of the right quantity and maintaining a balance of nature. This principle applies to the whole of nature including human beings. For some reason, we humans believe that we are immune to these laws.

The motor car is a wonderful invention, when only a few million people posses one, but when hundreds of millions start to use a vehicle there is a serious problem. The same principle applies to all of the wonderful inventions that modern life has created. The more people there are the more CO2 there will be emitted. We cannot escape from the fact that there are too many people on the planet, who are either, already, consuming at levels which threaten the environment or aspire to do so. In the Western World, we have based our political, economic and social systems on immediate consumption. This has already lead to enormous degradation of the environment and dangerous levels of CO2 gas in the atmosphere. The developing world wishes to aspire to the same level of economic development as the West. It would be immoral to stop them; so while the population of the planet is increasing our problems are mounting and we are living out of balance of nature. The dynamic equilibrium of atmospheric gases, which has kept our climate favourable for the last 8,000 years or so, is being compromised.

I fear that the problem of over population and the perception that we are immune to the laws of nature will not be overcome before it is too late. For decades, there was a need to have a tsunami warning system in the Indian Ocean, nothing was done about it until 250,000 people died. Global warming will probably hit us with a crisis of much greater proportion. By then, it might not be possible to mitigate the effects of climate change and environmental degradation. The realisation that we must all change our opinion might come too late.

Getting the whole world, let alone the UK, to reduce its thirst for energy is a colossal and task. It might only be achieved by some form of dictatorship. We would also have to deny poorer countries the means to develop their economies. By 2030, at an emission rate of only one tonne of CO2 per person, the world will be emitting 8 billion tonnes per annum, if a population growth of 83 million per year is maintained. The ecosystem is able to sequester 4 billion tonnes per year, at best. The emissions balance sheet does not look good.

By 2030 the Arctic Ocean will probably not be covered by ice in the summer or the ice will have substantially reduced. This, in itself, presents a huge problem as the reflectivity of a vast area of ocean will be reduced from about 80% to 20%: the ocean will, therefore, absorb and retain more of the Sun’s energy. The planet will warm up more and more as a result. Not even the Green party has a policy for this, so we are faced with extra warming even if we could steady CO2 emissions by 2030. The prospects are not good.

To reduce man’s thirst for energy and consumer goods is almost an unsolvable problem. It would probably require complete cooperation between the competing nations. What are the chances of this happening?

The only way to get back to preindustrial levels of emissions and restore the CO2 concentration to safe levels will be too reduce our population to perhaps a billion people or fewer - whilst we rely upon fossil fuels. One might argue that soon the oil and gas will run out but there are ample supplies of coal and methyl clathrates just waiting to be exploited. More carbon in fact than we have burnt already.

How are we going to reduce our population? Some major religions are completely opposed to contraception. It is a difficult human rights issue and the drive to reproduce is as strong as the fear of death. Our economic, social and political systems are based on population growth. This is where the Green Party policy becomes unrealistic and wish washy: how can persuasion work? The Green party is, however, very brave to raise this issue as all other politicians seem to be frightened to tackle it. This is why Caroline Lucas is needed to point out the dangers; her eloquence and rationality are at least keeping the issue in the public eye.

I am of the view that it is now time for everyone to consider the position regarding the population growth of the planet. I am opposed, however, to families being forced to curb their reproduction. I urge every person to consider the future of our human species. If we all agreed to limit our families then we could help to reduce the problem of resource shortages along with, atmospheric pollution and the excess production of green house gases. I do not regard CO2 as a pollutant; we simply need it at the right concentration in the atmosphere for our species to flourish. Unfortunately, my hopes are probably in vain.

Where does this leave us? I could be accused of being a merchant of doom. Everyone, however, is doomed. Seven billion people will die of old age whether there is global warming or not. None of us will live for ever. We have to find a way to curb our population growth to maintain a reasonably good quality of life for everyone whilst they are alive. If we do not, the planet will do it for us. It will simply become uninhabitable, in most regions of the world, as the planet heats up and drought sets in. The ecosystem will not be able to support several billions of people. The evidence from palaeontology suggests that the human population was once reduced by climate change, in this case during an ice age, to around two thousand individuals. It happened without human intervention. The same could happen again because of our actions: we could even become extinct. We face the possibility of millions of children being born only to die in the first four or five years of their life. We face the prospect of mass migration, starvation, resource wars and global disease which could kill millions of weakened people. Do we really want this to happen? There is considerable risk that this undesirable consequence could occur. Over population does not only threaten us with climate changes; it threatens the degradation of the very environment which sustains us.

What do we do? Is there hope? I believe that the proposals of the Green Party will not solve the problem of Global Warming. They are a start, however, and they are more relevant than most other political parties’ propositions.

What do we do? I agree with James Lovelock. We must plan a contingency for the possible coming crisis. This planning might be more important than striving to reduce carbon emissions. But the emissions issue must be tackled eventually. Somehow, we must persuade everyone to reduce their fertility as a managed reduction of the population will be much more desirable. Nature is not cruel, in a human sense, it simply does not care whether we exist or not. Nature will be able to continue without us. We must change our view that we are immune to the laws of nature for we are an integrated part of them. Then, it might be possible to workout a solution.

Much as I hate to say this, we are faced with the prospect of having to “geo-engineer” a solution, but if climate change pulls out a surprise it may be too late to implement mitigation. We might have to consider carbon sequestration or pumping millions of tons of sulphur compounds into the atmosphere to artificially reduce the temperature. Such projects would be very expensive and difficult to maintain and in the long run might further upset the balance of nature. Perhaps, there will be little choice but to accept the additional risk.

The Green Party’s solutions are unrealistic but of course they have the right, if not the duty, to raise them. No other political parties are portraying the sense of urgency that is needed or perhaps, just like me, they despair that there is a solution.

Down to Earth

I have just read Hamish McRae’s article about the travel crisis resulting from the volcanic ash problem, in “The Independent”. I agree with nearly everything he says:
How reliant we have become on Air transport
Foreign Travel being a great equaliser
“Just in Time” systems making us more vulnerable to disruption by natural events
Land based travel systems being more “disorganised”
A change of thinking might help resolve problems that we have built into our economic models etc.
Where I disagree with him is; how we are going to resolve a solution. No doubt the wind direction will change and all the problems resulting from the air travel crisis will be forgotten; until the next time.
The 9/11 tragedy and crisis gave the airlines an opportunity to develop contingency plans to cater for stranded travellers and they did not. History, and the lessons which can be learnt from it, was quickly forgotten.
Even though less modern and less organised land based travel systems are slower they eventually will get you to your destination.
As per usual, some elements of the press are stirring up the crisis and are beginning to criticise the Met Office and Europe etc. Airline industry bosses are criticising the computer models used to predict where the ash cloud could be. Sensibly, because the computer models are not and cannot be perfect the authorities are erring on the side of caution. Equally, actual observations cannot be perfect as the volcano and the weather are unpredictable and cannot be manipulated to adhere to the human desire for certainty. The captains of industry pride themselves on being able to run business in the face of uncertainty, but this time air industry bosses are stumped and I feel that they are looking for a change of words to allow business as usual. The facts should dictate action. All human activity involves risk, I would be happy to fly if I knew that the Captain of the aircraft was allowed to make his own risk assessment without commercial pressure or media opinion swaying the decision. If an airliner falls out of the sky, as a result of the misinterpretation or dismissal of the facts, the consequences could be dreadful, even if the risk is very small that an accident will occur. This crisis has lasted less than a week so the authorities are correct not to panic.

This mini-crisis, and the way we are responding, epitomises our approach to life and business in general. The recent economic crisis indicates that the world is becoming over sophisticated. The super-organised system of using computer models to predict economic activity and financial outcomes has become unstable. We too often ignore the facts before our eyes. We should beware that our society could become unmanageable as greater numbers of people indulge, increasingly, in complex economic activity which strains the resources of the world. The world now operates on a “just in time “basis. We may not have time to think our way out of the next crisis even a minor one.
Before, the changes to our way of thinking happen, we shall need to be shocked by a really big crisis, an even bigger one than the last economic debacle, by then it might be too late to recover. I hope Hamish’s optimism is well founded.

That Volcano Again

As I mused in my blog on the 16th of April 2010: everyone is now re-assessing the action taken to ban flights over the areas affected by the volcanic ash in Europe.
The government and the authorities, in my view, are correct to err on the side of caution. If air travel is allowed to resume in the affected area and there is an air crash, then there will be a public outcry and the news media will traduce the authorities, even if the cause is not volcanic ash.
The airlines themselves are pressing for a re-assessment of the danger based on evidence rather than weather models. The evidence in front of my eyes over the weekend, in both South London and West Sussex, was that a layer of fine dust was coating the surface of cars. This dust felt very abrasive, much more than the dust from the Sahara which coats flat surfaces when the wind is from the south. There is ample evidence to suggest that volcanic ash is dangerous to aircraft. It is, probably, very difficult to predict both the density and location of the dust. I would not put my faith in the results of the few test flights that have been made so far, to determine either the extent of the ash, its concentration or its effect on the engines. It is quite possible that a very large number of flights could be made through the ash, quite safely, but what are the chances of a plane flying through a dense cloud that could damage the aircraft? The risk might be small but the consequences are potentially disastrous, so why should people on the ground be subjected to a risk over which they have no control? Are the airline companies prepared to indemnify both their passengers and third parties of the consequences of a crash? Probably not, so the government would have to step in.
All human activity incurs risk and we are prepared to accept the risk of the unexpected but most people are not prepared to accept a known risk. This is why we must err on the side of caution.
What is, also, apparent is that the airline companies have no contingency plan in place to get passengers home or look after them when they are stranded.
We have all got used to quick, cheap and easy travel, but do most passengers consider that they may have to rely upon their own resources when a natural event upsets their plans? A catastrophe has been averted but a logistical nightmare has ensued. It will be very difficult for either the government or the airlines to resolve the problem of getting huge numbers of travellers home. If, we want the government or airline to provide instant assistance, are we prepared to include the cost of this in our airline ticket? It is time for us all to reconsider the options and costs when something goes wrong.
The economic consequences of the eruption are equally disturbing and require pause for thought. Many businesses and jobs are based on the model of quickly supplying fresh products to rich European markets and using air travel as a delivery mechanism. Many poor people are going to suffer as a result of this business model going wrong for just a few days let alone months. Do we really need to fly flowers from Kenya to satisfy rich Europeans’ cosmetic demands? Would it not be better to set up businesses in Kenya which do not rely upon such a vulnerable supply chain? It will be very difficult to unwind this business model; so we should consider the effect on third world economies if we proscribe air transport for reasons other than the risk of a crash.
Perhaps, it is time to reflect upon our business models whilst we are waiting at the airport. Time to reflect what will happen, if James Hansen is correct, and the climate and the wind change direction permanently. Time, perhaps, to put away our Blackberries and Spreadsheets, for a moment, and think rather than punch numbers.

Blue Skies thinking

This picture was taken of the sky over London at around noon on the 17th of April 2010. Wall to wall blue; not a cloud in the sky and no contrails. This is a sight I have not seen for many, many years. The same high pressure system that has brought us a cloudless sky has also brought the volcanic ash to ground all jets. What a fantastic sight: I never thought it would happen - well over London anyway.

The view and the quiet can be appreciated for a short period of time. But, what about those who are marooned by this act of nature? What about the jobs which are affected? What about the sick and distressed who are awaiting food and other aid? What about those who are waiting to fly to London or New York for life saving medical care?

Modern life is completely dependent upon air travel. We must think very carefully before any action is taken to limit air travel and need to plan an effective alternative.

UKIP and TPA

UKIP were interviewed on the BBC today and claimed that Britain's EU membership costs the country GBP 120,000 million per year. Yes that is GBP 120 billion. They obtained this figure from the Tax Payer's Alliance(TPA). I know politicians make exaggerated claims but this is preposterous.

The TPA claim that the direct costs of EU membership will soon become GBP 10 billion pa; this leaves another GBP 110 billion pa to be accounted for by indirect costs such as red tape. This figure is beyond belief. We would already be completely broke after five years of that. Whatever your opinion of the EU, GBP 110 billion on red tape for just Britain alone, is rather a lot . What about the other countries? Soon the whole of the EU could be pulling the world economy into a black hole - if UKIP are to be believed.

These figures should not remain unchallenged. The public deserves better.

Election Fever

Just like milllions of others I watched the "three Prime Minister" debate with enthusiasm. I thought all three of them did rather well. At first they all seemed agitated by both nerves and expectation.

One thing came through quite clearly:there were hardly any policy differences. The one area, where there was substantial difference, was constitutional reform. But, even then, the proposals of both the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party were similar.

Perhaps, we can only decide who to vote for on the basis of personality, because the policy differences are so minimal. This is a shame.

The press and the television channels almost portrayed the debate as a beauty contest. And, of course, they wanted a winner and a loser. I don't care whether David Cameron looked nervous or not. I don't care, if Gordon Brown looked a bit stiff. And, I don't care that Nick Clegg had his hand in his pocket. I care even less about what ties they were wearing.

We are placing too much emphasis about who leads the political parties, and we are expecting a presidential or mayoral style of election even though we are just electing a parliament. It is not possible, under the present constitutional arrangements, for the general public to elect the Prime Minister directly.

We are not electing a leader; we are electing a party and a set of policies. Each party selects its own leader. The Prime Minister cannot be a President. If, we were to head down the road of the general public, rather than party members, selecting a leader then the Prime Minister would become the de facto Head of State. We would need to drastically alter our constitution. What would happen to the Queen? The Prime Minister could effectively become Head of State and Head of Government rolled into one.

There is much talk of a hung parliament, and if the political parties cannot decide on a coalition the Queen will have to select a Prime Minister. So, the Head of State and Prime Minister must be different individuals.

Where would the checks and balances lie? The USA and France have elected Senates to control the possible excesses of the President or the Head of Government. Therefore, the House of Lords,if they were to perform the same function, would have to be fully elected too.

If we want to keep our Head of State independent from our Prime Minister, then we shall have to accept that the political parties will continue to select their own leader. Therefore, we should not force David Cameron, Gordon Brown or Nick Clegg to act like a Presidents and allow them to concentrate on policy rather than "beauty contests"

Eyjaffjallajokull Volcano

I draw this conclusion about the effects of the Eyjaffjallajokull volcano.

Human Beings are not all powerful and we are only able to thrive on planet earth whilst the climate, weather and geological conditions remain favourable.

A relatively small volcanic eruption coupled with an unfavourable wind direction will be able to cause havoc and economic damage in a short period of time.

We are powerless to control these events.

What happens if the volcano continues to erupt with the same vigour for many months or years and the winds blow the ash in the direction of Northern Europe? We are unable to engineer a solution, quickly,to protect aircraft engines. Will there be damage to the airline industry and the economies of Europe?

I shall be interested to see the response of the airline industry, the authorities and the public. Will the air traffic control systems by adapted to allow planes to fly below the ash clouds? Will the authorities allow it?

Will society accept the increased risk of flying in and around the ash to allow aviation, social and economic activity to continue unhindered?

A relatively small amount of volcanic ash, in the atmosphere, has the potential to disrupt our lives considerably,especially if the eruption continues for more than a few weeks.

We have seen the power of nature to disrupt our lives and economies without any intervention on our part. We are intervening with nature on a grand scale by pumping thousands of millions of tons of green house gases into our atmosphere. We are also pumping millions of tons of aerosols into the air. I can only think we are doing this at our peril.