We Should Study History

BBC SPORT | Other Sport… | Cycling | All hail the king

Eldonebb — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:53:38 +0000

Lance Armstrong bowed out in a blaze of glory on Sunday, winning a seventh Tour de France.

The Texan rarely looked troubled en route to the win, eventually crossing the finish on the Champs-Elysees almost five minutes ahead of his closest rival.

BBC Sport asks key figures in the sport to rate Armstrong's achievement.

I spoke to Armstrong after one of the mountain stages and said "you're playing with them aren't you?"

And he gave me a wry grin and said he'd had to say to the cameras he was suffering before he cycled off as cool as you like.

I think that's possibly the easiest Tour he's ever ridden – he was well within himself. He was looking around a lot all the time and never really forced the pace. He got Yaroslav Popovych to increase the speed and then he went.

He'll leave a gap in the sport, although not a void. Cycling superstars do come and go. And it'll be the same post-Armstrong.

Arguably the hardest thing to achieve as a cyclist is to win the Tour de France – it's our Wimbledon or Super Bowl. And the fact that Lance did that seven times is awesome.

He's unique and everyone around the world, even from other sports, can appreciate what he's achieved.

I remember when I last rode it in 1998. I briefly took the yellow jersey before crashing out. Then, I never envisaged he would even challenge for the win the following year. But he did – I guess that was the last time he surprised me.

It simply became a case of "who's going to beat him?" rather than "will he win?".

He became cycling's first global superstar. OK, the Tour was Armstrong's springboard, but his adversity and the way he came back and what he's done off the bike, bring so much more appeal.

I suppose he's all right really – he's done a bit in his career! Seriously, though, it's pretty awesome when you watch him in action from the centre of the team.

His focus has been awesome and there was never any doubt for us in the team that he'd do it. And now he bows out at the peak of his powers

I remember riding with him in the same team at the end of my career and everyone mentions how he's a different rider altogether since his return from cancer.

But he always had the potential to be great, it's just that he far exceeded that when he came back from illness.

For me, he's the most complete rider I've ever ridden with, against or seen on the telelvision. As for comparing him to the likes of Eddy Merckx, that's hard to do. It'd be a close-run thing though.

What Lance Armstrong has achieved is a record built to last and a record that can now be set in stone.

And that is perfectly reasonable because no-one is going to break it any time soon.

He deserved his last six Tour de France wins and was an equally deserving winner this time.

Crichton’s conspiracy theory

Eldonebb — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 09:49:26 +0000

In his weekly opinion column, Harold Evans takes issue with Michael Crichton's latest thriller, in which global warming is the work of mad eco-scientists.

Do you ever read that line on an early page of a novel: "Any connection between the characters and events herein portrayed, and real people, is purely coincidental."

In Michael Crichton's State of Fear, I'd say the connection was purely intentional. It's about the kind of hurricanes, floods, tsunamis and tornadoes we've been experiencing. Crichton's trade is to bring pleasurable terror to millions by spinning tales of science gone amok – as in Jurassic Park and the Andromeda Strain.

In this new bestseller those hurricanes etc aren't natural disasters at all. They are the creations of global warming activists – eco-maniacs desperate to publicise the case for controlling emissions of carbon dioxide. To make sure you get his point, Crichton adds a 32-page footnote documenting his own conviction that global warming is an unscientific scare.

What about the contrary worldwide consensus of scientists that global warming is a man-made disaster in the making? Crichton's answer: "If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus." As I suppose in the old consensus that the earth is flat.

Crichton's is not actually a thesis that the displaced folks in Louisiana and Texas can concentrate on at the moment in the wake of Katrina and Rita. Yet for his polemic on global warming, Crichton has become something of a hero to the groups fighting hard to stop anything like the Kyoto treaty.

The well-endowed think tank, the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy, honoured Crichton with an invitation to Washington to address its members – not on the novel, but on science policy in the 21st Century. The point of that was to embrace Crichton's attack on what he calls the pseudo-science of global warming. It's not easy to embrace Crichton himself; he is an intimidating 6ft 9 inches.

-->

The sceptics on global warming needed this kind of reinforcement. They have mostly been keeping quiet after the ferocity of Katrina and Rita, widely blamed in the press on the unusually hot waters of the Gulf. Al Gore, in a rousing "action now" speech that impressed business leaders at the Clinton summit in New York recently, pointed out that since the 1970s, hurricanes both in the Atlantic and Pacific have increased in intensity by about 50%.

'Great hoax'?

It is quite significant that while President Bush has been active on hurricane relief, he has not reiterated his well-aired doubts about whether global warming is a real threat or a scare. Nor have we heard much from the Republican chairman of the Senate Environment Committee.

Senator James Inhofe's previous best effort was this: "With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phoney science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it."

The senator did not explain quite how 2,000 top scientists in 100 countries could have been persuaded in 2004 to produce a rare consensus that gas emissions left unchecked will produce a series of catastrophes. Nor is he likely to try and explain in the post-Katrina atmosphere.

The conspiracy Crichton outlined in his novel might seem tailor-made for Hollywood – scientists manipulating weather systems to suit their own leftie agenda. But it is very much in the paranoid political style identified by the renowned historian Richard Hofstadter. There are still people who just know that FDR conspired with Winston Churchill to have the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor. There are millions who just know that JFK's assassin, the shooter on the grassy hill in Dallas, was hired by Lyndon Johnson.

As a historian, I have never been much impressed by conspiracy theories left or right. Too often, they are exalted by non-evidence – "proved" by records that have disappeared, "witnesses" whose stories have been suppressed. But if you happen to be in the market for a conspiracy theory today, there's a rather more credible one documented by the pressure group Greenpeace. Just bend an ear for a moment for the names of a few organizations very much concerned with global warming.

Advancement of Sound Science Centre Inc
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
Heartland Institute
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Annapolis Center for Science-based Public Policy

You wouldn't guess it but all these highfalutin bodies are dedicated to undermining the science of global warming and preventing America signing something like the Kyoto Treaty. And again, you wouldn't guess it, but they take thousands of dollars from Exxon Mobil. It's the world's largest oil company and a high profile opponent of Kyoto for imposing too many costs on the developed world.

The five groups I mentioned are not the only ones with deceptive titles. Greenpeace has identified 40 such mouths at the Exxon nipple. So what's wrong about this? For one thing I'd guess you'd be a bit more sceptical of their pronouncements on global warming if they made it clear that they are not – shall we say – unrelated to the interests of their Exxon sponsors.

I asked Exxon about supporting so many of these propaganda groups. They point out that pro-Kyoto foundations give out much more money than they do, and that's true. What's disturbing to me is that the groups Exxon supports are much less forthcoming about their connections; they are often treated in the media as if they were wholly independent scientific bodies.

In addition Exxon has done something positive in committing $100m to Stanford University for research into new energy technology. So where's the rub? Well, funding long-term research like this is all well and good. The trouble is – as the economist Keynes famously said in another context – in the long-term we are all dead. The damage is being done here and now every day. It is accelerating – and it is damage that could be irreversible.

Smear tactics

All the delaying tactics, denials and obfuscations bring to mind what happened in 1974 to two American scientists, Professor Sherwood Roland and Dr Mario Molina. They coolly set out the evidence that the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used in refrigeration, aerosols and air conditioning were eating at the ozone layer which protects mankind and plants from dangerous ultraviolet radiation.

They were at once smeared as scaremongers. The manufacturers ran an all too successful campaign to fog the issue. A lazy media bought into it. The public got bored and bamboozled. And as they did so, millions more tons of the pollutant were added to the atmosphere.

Thirteen years later when the world finally woke up to an ozone hole bigger than anyone had predicted, there was a swift international agreement – led by the US – to find alternatives to the CFCs. In the meantime, great damage had been done.

Winston Churchill back in the 1930s had this to say about another government that didn't believe a threat was real. As the Chamberlain Cabinet dithered about Hitler, Churchill warned: "They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent."

And he concluded: "The era of procrastination, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences."

We are entering that period now with global warming. And if quoting Churchill in this context puts me in Michael Crichton's class of conspirators, I will bear it with fortitude.

Add your comments on this story, using the form below.

An excellent article. Whenever any newly discovered scientific fact threatens existing economic interests, those interests will always induce some scientists to challenge it, until the scientific consensus becomes so overwhelming that no scientist is willing to look like a fool by standing out against it any longer. For many years the tobacco companies were able to roll out tame scientists to deny that smoking caused lung cancer, but now even they have given up pretending. The same process is now repeating itself with the oil companies and global warming – the only question is whether it will take so long that it is too late for the earth.
Rod Parkes, Taipo, Hong Kong

Brilliant, just what an already confused issue needs. Is there anyone here who would deny the existence of a current global warming trend? If so I would have to categorise them alongside those who doubt the existence of the Apollo moon landings. Its hard science, with irrefutable evidence. Now can we do something about it, please? Only I don't want to be remembered as one of the generation who's egotistical inaction brought about the beginning of the end of the world.
Andrew Watkins, Glasgow, Scotland

Has Harold Evans actually read Crichton's book? Does he understand the word 'Fiction'? It's amusing and yes, frustrating to read articles like this that attack a work of fiction as though it was fact. I smell a similar fear as that of the Catholic Church when condemning the 'Da Vinci Code'. Maybe there's no smoke without fire? Why would the church appoint a senior figure solely to defend itself against the ideas in a work of fiction unless there was some truth there? Equally, why is the conservation lobby now gearing up to attack 'State of Fear' unless they don't want it's ideas to gain currency? One thing is for sure, 'State of Fear' is a cracking read, one of the better Crichtons for a while. I guess the author is thanking Evans and the like for the free publicity, same as Dan Brown is thanking the Catholic Church for prompting his book.
Philip, Bath UK

A fine opinion piece on a very interesting novel. It is interesting that Mr. Evans chose the issue of CFC's to illustrate his point as this is also addressed in Crichton's book – to show how no environmental decision we make is without consequences – in the case of CFC's the developing world lost access to a cheap method of refrigeration whilst the planet as a whole benefited. In addressing ecological questions, humanity does need a clearer idea of risk assessment and how to analyse the benefit versus the cost of a given course of action. Whilst I am most eager that action be taken to protect the environment, I welcome 'State of Fear' as contributing to a debate we all need to have if we can live sustainably on Planet Earth.
Endaf Kerfoot, London, UK

All very well but to me the message of the book was this: Both sides are quite capable of propaganda. Information may still be misleading even if backed by and promoting a 'good' cause. Thus question the aims of those putting forward information when interpreting it. Of course the book will also make good film material and choice of topic guarantees publicity – we are discussing it now!
Michaela, Derby

Well, I guess I will never buy another Crichton book again. If it is a consensus, it isn't science? What bulljive! How about the consensus that C-14 decays at a given rate, which can be used to date organic remains? How about the consensus that falling objects accelerate at… well you get my point. The scientific method is all about GENERATING consensus by testing ideas. It's sad to see someone as entertaining as Crichton stoop to such cheap publicity hounding.
Jim Senter, New Orleans, LA, USA

Hear, hear. Please keep writing and publishing these kind of comments. People do not want to see or hear reality, especially if it means changing their life styles, but our lifestyles are going to change anyway, so please keep hammering away. I am with you and wish I had your knowledge and profile to join you. Best wishes
Jackie Townsend, Bydgoszcz, Poland (at the moment)

Climate change is a great scare story, but it hides the real problem. We are running out of oil and when we do so, if we haven't developed an alternative, society will collapse and most of us will not survive. We need to develop an alternative to oil now, while we have abundant energy to make it happen. If we wait until oil runs out (we have already burnt more than half of the world's known oil reserves), it will be too late. A side benefit of producing an alternative to oil is that we will also eliminate the pollution that gets blamed for climate change.
Mike , Bodmin, Cornwall

Amazing how people are still fighting against global warming. Even if it is not happening right now, it will in the future. Greenhouse effects are a scientific fact. So at the very least, people should look for ways to build a more balanced earth.
Dirk Vandenheuvel, Leuven, Belgium

The current crop of natural disasters are exactly that, natural. The earth's climate has always gone in cycles and it is arrogance to assume man's input can make any difference either way. I agree with Crichton, the global warming activists are scare-mongers.
LJS, Stockport, UK

How much was he paid and by who? I'm sure his books will sell well in ant- Darwin pro-creationism parts of the world. As for the other 99% of the known universe we will just struggle on with the reality of the situation.
David K, Windsor UK

What the hell does "If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus" mean? Crichton is talking out of his ass. The world does not need idiots like him talking rubbish that influential people can then use as propaganda.
Nicola, Reading, England

Crichton's book is very thought provoking. What you have just said is exactly what he is talking about. People saying 'but scientists say it so it must be true. There is no proof and a lot of reason for doubt yet people ignore that and go with the sensationalist view that the world is ending etc.
Dug, Bristol

Excellent piece by Harold Evans. Very encouraging to find that he really "gets it" on global warming. Can I suggest you alert the BBC Radio 4 Today programme team (all of them) to this piece. Reading it or listening to it might dissuade them from having Dr S Fred Singer on (again) to propagate his malign nonsense on the issue.
Douglas Coker, Enfield UK

Brilliant. Harold Evans is fascinating. Hang on to him!
Penny Cushing, Alton, Hampshire

Fine prose, sane comment delivered with humour and therefore a tonic in this "actually" infested, half gibberish world of communications. Well done Howard. Couldn't have expressed it any better myself.
John Vetterlein, Orkney UK

Those of us with children and grandchildren must fervently hope that eventually those in power in the USA will come to accept that the situation is becoming desperately serious and that unless action is taken NOW those children will have, courtesy especially of the USA, very little to look forward to.
Peter, Cambridge, UK

Well done, Harold Evans!
Tim Weller, Halesowen

The Churchill quote is extraordinarily. Global warming is clearly the greatest moral and political challenge of our time, easily comparable with the threat of Nazism in the 1930s. Those who would deny that it is taking place as a result of greenhouse gas emissions are playing much the same role as the appeasers of those days – with the difference that the wishful thinking of the latter was not, on the whole, promoted with the help of funds donated by the Third Reich.
Tom Scott, Falmouth, UK

Name
Your e-mail address
Town/city and country
Your comment

The BBC may edit your comments and not all emails will be published. Your comments may be published on any BBC media worldwide.
Terms & Conditions

Stern climate questions

Eldonebb — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 11:49:27 +0000

Stern climate questions

Newsnight
29 Nov 07, 11:57 AM

Last autumn, former Treasury mandarin and World Bank Chief Economist, Sir Nicholas Stern warned the world of the economic and social costs of climate change. (Watch his 2006 LSE lecture and Jeremyâ€™s interview with him from January this year.) The former World Bank chief economist argued that unabated climate change would cost the world at least 5% of GDP each year; if more dramatic predictions came to pass, he said, the cost could be more than 20% of GDP. (The Stern Review)

Sir Nicholas is now warning of the consequences of failure at the Bali conference on climate change which begins next week. Tonight Newsnight has an exclusive interview with Sir Nicholas Stern. What questions would you like us to ask him?

Ancient history damaged by farmers

Eldonebb — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:46:46 +0000

Thousands of archaeological sites are being damaged by farmers, English Heritage has warned.

Ploughs had damaged or destroyed valuable sites, including Neolithic long barrows, Roman villas, Anglo-Saxon cemeteries and medieval field systems.

English Heritage wants for a new strategy to protect sites but said farmers were not to blame.

"They have only been doing what society has asked and agricultural policy has dictated," said chief executive Simon Thurley.

"Modern intensive ploughing has arguably done more damage in six decades than traditional agriculture did in the preceding six centuries."

A new strategy would need the support of farmers and also reward them for stewardship, Dr Thurley said.

Since 1945 many sites, including some of the oldest visible monuments, have been destroyed or are being seriously damaged, ploughed up or degraded by increasingly powerful farm machinery and ever more intensive cultivation, English Heritage said.

Modern machinery

Examples of sites damaged by ploughing include numerous prehistoric burial grounds and an exquisite Roman mosaic floor at Dinnington in Somerset, which has been heavily scored by deep ploughing.

Precious objects are also at risk. Only two out of 39 Bronze Age metalwork hoards recovered from Norfolk in the last 30 years had not been disturbed by farming, it said.

A 4,000-year-old gold cup, discovered in a field at Ringlemere in Kent and recently bought by the British Museum, had been distorted by the impact of a plough.

The character of whole landscapes has also been damaged by intensive cultivation as in Padbury, Buckinghamshire, where medieval ridge and furrows, well preserved in the 1950s, hedgerows and field trees have been destroyed.

The English Heritage campaign, Ripping Up History, coincides with the publication of a consultation paper on the Review of Heritage Protection, which the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is carrying out in partnership with English Heritage.

It is aimed at improving the ways the past is protected.

Heritage Minister Andrew McIntosh said: "Archaeological sites contain a wealth of material that charts the development of civilisation in this country.

"It is vitally important that we do as much as we can to protect this heritage so that future generations will have a better understanding of our history."

'No malicious intent'

The National Farmers' Union said the government, local authorities and archaeologists needed to work with farmers to investigate how more effective protection can be given to ancient sites on farmland.

The union's environment chairman John Seymour said: "In the majority of cases, damage that has been caused to these sites has been the result of farmers not being informed about the sites rather than as a result of any malicious intent."

The English Heritage report says nearly 3,000 nationally important monuments are today under cultivation.

Although legislation gives protection to these monuments from most threats, in many cases it permits them to be ploughed, even though it can cause damage to fragile and irreplaceable archaeological remains.

Minister backs ancient historians

Eldonebb — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 05:43:58 +0000

The government wants exam boards to ensure that ancient history continues as an A-level subject.

The last board offering it, OCR, is proposing to stop doing so.

During a Lords debate, Schools Minister Lord Adonis said the government was "not content", and was inviting the boards to produce fresh proposals.

OCR's move has brought an outcry from classicists, including shadow education minister Boris Johnson, who wore a toga to a protest meeting this week.

An "e-petition" on the Downing Street website has attracted several thousand signatures.

During an earlier Commons debate, School Standards Minister Jim Knight said he was certain OCR and the qualifications regulator, the QCA, would resolve the issue "in a way that meets the needs of future students by ensuring that the qualifications offered cover a comprehensive and rigorous curriculum".

The government's stance appears to have hardened since then.

In the latest Lords debate, Lord Adonis said: "All periods of history, from the ancient to the modern, can inspire our young people to study the subject, opening them up to skills that are essential in today's world as well a vital understanding of our past.

"The government is not content to see the end of ancient history as a single A-level and has invited the exam boards to come forward with proposals for it to continue."

A Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) spokeswoman said it was discussing the situation with OCR and was arranging a meeting with ministers.

"There is no statutory duty that requires particular subjects to be offered, but regulators and awarding bodies work together to try to ensure that, where possible, low-entry subjects can be offered in a sustainable way, maintaining a wide range of options for learners."

The International Baccalaureate Organisation (IBO) has apologised for setting a two-year-old paper in a history exam last week.
It said a "grave mistake" had been made in the reissuing of the paper, attributed to "human error".
A Welsh Assembly Government spokesperson said: "Senior managers at IBO fully realise the seriousness of this matter.
"Meetings will continue to be held with the IBO to ensure that candidates are treated appropriately and fairly and receive the grades they deserve."

Pouring cold water on Kyoto

Eldonebb — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 23:17:56 +0000

Bush administration officials and members of the Republican-led Congress are in general uncomfortable when asked to discuss global warming.

They know that US policy is at odds with most scientific experts on the issue, ever since President Bush pulled the US out of the Kyoto process soon after taking office in 2001.

The US position is flying in the face of a broad consensus of world opinion that urgent collective action is required to reduce industrial emissions that add to global warming.

President Bush and Congress also know that to support legislation obliging US industrial plants to reduce emissions – as Kyoto demands – would be a vote loser, because it would mean cutting production, increasing unemployment and raising energy bills.

The most recent attempt by Kyoto process supporters to introduce a Senate bill failed in October.

The draft, called the Climate Stewardship Bill, was dubbed "Kyoto Lite" by its detractors.

It was co-sponsored across party lines by Democrat Joe Liebermann – one of next year's presidential election hopefuls – and Republican John McCain.

Critics of the bill argued that it would have reduced US GDP by $106 billion and raised energy costs by at least 30%.

'Hoax'

Among those who regularly speak up vociferously against global warming legislation is James Inhofe, the Republican chairman of the Senate environment committee.

Mr Inhofe is representing the US position at the UN conference on climate change in Milan this week.

He has gone so far as to describe the whole concept of industrial global warming as a hoax perpetrated by politically mischievous environmentalists.

He quotes findings of a study by Dr Willie Soon and Dr Sallie Baliunas, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, that determined the 20th century was neither the warmest, nor the century with the most extreme weather within the past millennium.

They conclude global warming is a natural phenomenon on which modern-day industrial emissions have no significant impact.

It is a view that fits neatly with the majority view in Congress that US industry need do nothing at all about global warming.

Some US opponents to Kyoto also argue that the UN-backed conference process is little more than a cover for shifting political power away from the US.

As evidence, opponents of Kyoto quote French President Jacques Chirac – something of a bogeyman figure among Republican conservatives – who they say once described the Kyoto treaty as a key step on the path to "global governance".

CBBC Newsround | World | Kids’ fears for planet revealed

Eldonebb — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 20:04:41 +0000

Climate change, crime and terrorism are the biggest global issues for the kids of today, a survey has found.

A total of 1,000 people aged 10 to 18 were asked what they thought would be the biggest issues in their lifetimes.

Climate change polled 24% of their votes, followed by crime and violence (19%) and terrorism (18%).

The survey is linked to the J8 Global Citizen Programme, which gives school pupils the chance to speak out on the problems facing the world.

Click here to find out more about G8

"Today's youngsters believe they are part of a global community, not isolated from global issues," said a spokesman for the firm which carried out the survey.

It comes ahead of the G8 meeting in Scotland, where leaders from the world's most powerful nations will discuss global issues.

Liechtenstein in data theft probe

Eldonebb — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 08:10:14 +0000

Liechtenstein has opened a legal case against a former employee of LGT bank over the alleged theft of client data now being used in a German tax probe.

Heinrich Kieber and others are being investigated for allegedly stealing data to pass on to foreign authorities.

Liechtenstein is also seeking legal cooperation from German authorities.

The UK's tax authority, the HMRC, has confirmed it also paid an informant for data regarding UK citizens who have accounts in tax haven Liechtenstein.

Worldwide spotlight

The Liechtenstein prosecutor has asked the prosecutors in the German cities of Bochum and Munich "to obtain relevant information about the precise identities of the informants".

Prosecutors in Bochum have been leading the tax probe.

Germany launched its tax inquiry after reportedly paying 5m euros in January 2006 for a list of wealthy Germans with money stashed away in the tiny Alpine principality with tight bank secrecy laws.

Berlin said on Monday that it would share information it had obtained with other countries.

Investigators in the US, Australia, Italy, France, Sweden, Canada, New Zealand, Spain and the Czech Republic are among other countries hunting for taxpayers hiding their money in Liechtenstein.

On Sunday the UK tax authorities said they had made the move in a bid to protect the UK against those trying to "deprive the UK of tax revenues to which it is entitled".

It has not revealed how much it paid for the information.

'Uncooperative tax haven'

Authorities in Liechtenstein have condemned the purchase of what it says is confidential bank data.

LGT Treuhand, part controlled by the principality's royal family, claims the list of 1,400 customer names are contained on DVDs that were copied by Mr Kieber in 2002.

The data concerns about 1,400 clients, with close to half resident in Germany, the bank said.

"The data material illegally disclosed to the German authorities is limited… to the client data stolen from LGT Treuhand in 2002," said the bank.

Liechtenstein's ruler – Crown Prince Alois – has also argued that Germany's investigation is illegal.

But German prosecutors say their investigation has so far netted 163 people and led to the recovery of more than 27m euros in tax revenue.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development lists Liechtenstein as one of only three states remaining on its blacklist of "uncooperative tax havens".

MP dons toga for history protest

Eldonebb — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:28:37 +0000

Conservative MP Boris Johnson donned a toga and joined students outside the House of Commons in protest at plans to scrap the last ancient history A-level.

Girls from Godolphin and Latymer School in Hammersmith, west London, handed the shadow education minister a petition signed by 4,000 people.

He is backing calls to halt plans by the OCR exam board to end the subject.

Urging the government to step in Mr Johnson said the course was of huge importance to Britain and its culture.

Speaking outside parliament on Monday the Henley-on-Thames MP said it was important not to lose a subject which could provide a route to university for many people.

Religious confrontations

"I think you're getting rid of another potential route. Why not leave things as they are? It's a wonderful subject, it's well taught, let's encourage more people to do it," he said.

Natasha Hausdorff, 17, one of the sixth-form students leading the campaign, said she was fighting to preserve a subject she loved and which could teach youngsters about democracy, religious confrontations and east-west relations.

In March OCR said it planned to scrap ancient history saying revised A-level courses would offer students a better range of qualifications.

Elements of the old ancient history exam would be taken into a new classical civilisation A-level which will be taught from September 2008.

But some critics argued the new course would not examine ancient history properly.

US Democrats mull climate change

Eldonebb — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:45:28 +0000

The issue of climate change and global warming hardly registered on the political radar in the United States during the recent Congressional elections.

On 7 November however, the Democratic Party secured both houses of Congress and that political shift is likely to mean a change of emphasis over key environmental issues.

The US is the world's largest greenhouse gas polluter but the country has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol that sets limits on those gases.

Instead President George W Bush has emphasised the need for innovations that will reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

"America is addicted to oil," he said in this year's State of the Union address.

"Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy, the best way to break this addiction is through technology."

Democratic hope

Now that the Democratic Party has taken control of both houses of Congress there is hope amongst senior Democrats that they will be able convince the president that caps on greenhouse gases are needed as well.

"We have an opportunity to put an emphasis on issues of clean energy, renewable energy, global warming, climate change, in a way that wasn't possible during the last several years," says the incoming Democratic Party head of the Senate energy committee, Jeff Bingaman.

Mr Bingaman supports set federal limits on greenhouse gases.

He recently co-authored a letter to President Bush urging him to work with the Democrats to develop solutions to the global warming problem.

As in other areas of legislation, the Democrats are emphasising bi-partisanship.

That is a necessity, rather than a sign of magnanimity.

There are still enough Republicans in the Senate to filibuster legislation – basically talk until it runs out of time for a vote, and if that does not happen the president can still wield his veto.

"If you stake out an extreme position you'll pass nothing," says Raymond Kopp, an analyst at Resources for the Future, a environmental think-tank.

"The Democrats have got to put in place sound policy, start it slow and give it a chance to ramp up over time."

Evangelical environmentalists

The Democratic Party's electoral victory has given it momentum over the issue of climate change and that is being bolstered because of the growing support of evangelical Christians – a group usually more closely allied to the Republican Party.

The Reverend Jim Ball is part of a new coalition of evangelical churches in favour of more stringent legislation to combat global warming being mooted by the Democrats.

Their starting position is that the poor are going to be most affected by global warming, so it is a Christian duty to do something about it.

But Mr Ball recognises that "we're not yet at Congressional Nirvana. Many democrats come from coal states and oil and gas states. So this issue isn't just a Republican versus Democrat issue".

He is right to be cautious.

There are still large numbers of people who are sceptical about the significance of climate change.

A recent poll carried out by the Pew Research Center in Washington suggested that only two out of five Americans think global warming is caused by human activity and only one in five were personally worried by climate change.

People in 15 countries, rich and poor, were asked that question. Concern in the US was the lowest of them all.

If there is ambivalence amongst the public about global warming, there is outright scepticism from some groups.

"There's a lot of global warming hysteria out there," says Myron Ebell from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

"The facts are that the earth hasn't been warming up very quickly, that the predictions of coming catastrophe over-estimate the amount of warming that is likely to occur."

Supreme Court case

So for Mr Ebell, with the prospect of emission cap legislation, these should be dark days.

Well – only up to a point. He is optimistic that the Democrats will in fact achieve very little.

"We've already heard that the Democrats are going to have lengthy Congressional hearings into global warming," says Mr Ebell.

"There'll be a great deal of rhetoric and that will gain them a lot of support in suburban constituencies, but in terms of passing major environmental legislation I don't see them going anywhere."

Whatever legislation comes, it will be incremental.

Public opinion is divided on global warming. It is not driving the politicians forward at breakneck speed.

It could in fact be the courts that give the issue added impetus.

The US Supreme Court has just begun hearing arguments over whether the government should regulate certain greenhouse gas emissions.

The case is limited to whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to regulate vehicle emissions of four greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide.

Lawyers for the state bringing the case, Massachusetts, argue that the EPA has to apply the law and use its authority to address global warming.

Environmentalists hope a ruling in their favour would force changes in the policies of President Bush's administration.