The Thin End

Who should lead on the response to a public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic?   In a commentary in The American Journal of Medicine noted public health experts have said that appropriate concerns – not fear – should play a significant role in the emerging pandemic, and political leaders should empower public health officials to drive the response. Our political leaders are quick enough to say they are 'being led by the science', but this is to a large extend disingenuous.  Science cannot tell politicians what to do.  It can only advise and given assessments of the probable consequences of decisions.  But those decisions must be taken by politicians.   The decisions are based on balancing different objectives - the economy, social impact, the effectiveness of any course of action, public attitudes and compliance - there is no one set of expertise on these.  Psychologists, sociologists, public health experts, epidemiologists, clini...

With Elizabeth Warren stepping out of the Democratic candidate race we are left with two tired old men who will probably now inflict untold damage on each other.  Neither is likely to come out of the race unscathed.   It is a battle between a 'socialist' left and a centrist.  Tired ideas headed up by tired old men. It is hardly inspirational stuff. American politics seems to be stuck in a time warp and neither the Republicans nor Democrats have ideas robust enough to face the critical challenge of climate change.   Climate change doesn't split neatly into a left-right division.    It really needs youthful leadership with new ideas.  Someone capable of projecting a vision of a new horizon.  Instead, we will have two potential leaders appealing to their separate camps of followers.  Those follow will entrench in their positions, and the risk is that it will alienate voters needed to win against Trump.   American politics is stu...

Boris Johnson has been telling Porky Pies about Melton Mowbray pork pies. He gave the pies as an example of our poor trade arrangements with the USA. US regulations stopped them being exported to the US, whilst they could be sold in Iceland. It all sounds like tough-talking. It seems reasonable, but for the fact that the pies are only exported to Ireland. It is the standard trick of the populist politician. Make something up and then sound tough on it. The Melton Mowbray pie is protected by the European Union. A no-deal Brexit would remove that protection, and the pies could readily be copied, or other kinds of pies could be sold as Melton Mowbray. This is a significant worry for the producers of Melton Mowbray pies who fought a legal battle to ensure its status was protected. Mr Johnson is in a hurry to make a trade deal with the USA. Both he and President Trump suggest a deal could be put in place within a year. This is odd, given it would usually take up to ten years. The UK...

With nations entering a new period of protectionist tariffs,  it is time to rethink the regulation of global trade.   Global trade is the driver of climate pollution and climate change. Call for Carbon Charging: In an article in Nature this month, three leading environmental experts have called for carbon charges rather than trade tariffs. With President Trump imposing heavy tariffs on goods from China and the EU, and those countries following with retaliatory barriers, they fail to address the real problem of global trade.  That countries are simply exporting pollution and emissions through imports. The authors point out that with all good intention of the Paris Climate Accord, it is unlikely that the target will be met of keeping warming below the critical 2 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels.  This would be so even if all countries were to meet their targets set out in their individual action plans. Photo by Elle Dunn Tackling carbon-in...

Why is the Paris climate accord significant, and does it matter that President Trump is intent on pulling the US out of the agreement? At the Paris climate conference  in December 2015, 195 countries adopted the first-ever universal, legally binding global climate deal.  For that reason alone it is a significant step - the world was doing what it should, coming together to tackle man-made climate change.  It was a beacon of hope. Now, the rest of the world looks on in dismay as Trump sets his own course based on the assumption that climate change is a 'hoax' cooked up by America's rivals.  Whilst other countries remain determined to follow through on the agreement,  does it really have legs without the USA? A global action plan The accord is significant, but only as a start. It sets clear targets. The agreement sets out the first 'global action plan' to put the world on track to avoid dangerous climate change by limiting global warming to well belo...