Category Archives: Environment

Locals are from Earth; migrants are from Venus, Mars, Alpha Centauri, wherever


“Hello, new friend-of-friend. [if person notes ethnicity in conversation] Yes, I do like it here, thank you. Yes, I’m intending to stay here. Yup, the weather is great and the people are friendly. No, haha, fair, I’m probably still gonna support my home country team against yours in the one massively hyped sporting contest that everyone talks about, but I do already support yours when they’re playing anyone else.”

[followed by: normal conversation, which may include philosophy, Cold Chisel, NRL, house prices, or the million life-in-general things that conversation features. Recommended.]


“Hello, person who was born here and waves a flag on special occasions. I like-love this place so much that actually, my quest to be allowed to stay here is the single most difficult thing I’ve ever done in my life, and I’ve bothered to do it. A quarter of a year in working days of my time, if not more, has been spent on staying-here bureaucracy and I’m hoping and praying (despite being entirely secular, can’t do any harm, right?) that the form-filling ceremony in a year or so will go hitchless and I’ll no longer have to worry about the risk of being driven out of my home and the place I already view as my homeland with a couple of weeks’ notice. And I’m still listening, and learning, and trying to understand, and always listen to make sure I’m trying to do this place right - and sometimes fuck it up, and am aware of it.

I’m lucky, I’m white and skilled and rich-country-born and English-speaking. If I weren’t, I wouldn’t have been let in in the first place (since I arrived on a visa only available to citizens of wealthy countries), and all of the steps that I’ve taken to become established as a member of this society would have been far harder. And I had money – while I don’t count my MA as part of the visa side of things, even excluding that, I’ve spent over ten thousand dollars on things that have solely been to ensure my visa, and have another outlay of a few thousand to come.

If I were poor (even if a citizen of a wealthy country) or a citizen or a poor country (even if wealthy), there’s absolutely sod-all chance I could have done what I’ve done here. When politicians talk about how people like me, or about how people who aren’t that different from me, who have a different foreign passport or a few fewer dollars, shouldn’t be here, I’m hurt by this discussion. The difference between the person being hated and me is solely down how how the speaker appraises their imaginary victim’s cultural and economic value, and a different speaker could view mine as equally worthless.”

[followed by: general communal downer, self-identification as lairy outsider. Not recommended]


“I’m friends with John and Prashant and Pierre, and they’re good people and they’re all here and they’ve never complained about how hard it is to get in or to be accepted, we just have a bit of banter about cricket and then talk about philosophy, NRL or house prices. Not like those whingers who come over here easy as pie and claim the dole and get free houses.”

[well, yes.]

On helping Americans to steal your pension

Let’s assume that, like most UK workers, you have a pension fund with a substantial part of its investment in FTSE companies, usually weighted by value.

What should you care more about:

1) the fact that the US government is attempting to steal a sizeable proportion of your money?

2) some fucking cormorants?

Clue: if you picked 2, you’re an idiot.

So could British people perhaps stop ragging on BP, or pretending the Gulf of Mexico spill is some kind of serious environmental disaster that’ll actually harm people (rather than making beaches look untidy for a bit and topping some fish and birds)?

The spill will cost about $20-30bn to clear up, including compensation for those directly affected, which is a sum that BP should have no problem in paying, and which would be the fair price for them to pay.

The fact that BP’s share price is below levels reflecting that cost, and that BP bond yields have increased to junk levels partly reflects market panic – but also partly reflects genuine fears that the US will do something truly vindictive, using its demonisation of BP as an excuse to steal its (i.e. ‘your’) assets beyond the cost of cleaning the spill in some form of punitive damages.

And everyone who brings out the whole ‘ooh, BP is so evil and unsafe’ saw (it is not; it is as evil and unsafe as the rest of the oil industry, whose levels of evilness and unsafety are set by national governments in oily countries. BP’s safety culture in its US operations is no different from ExxonMobil’s, Shell’s or Chevron’s – it was just the unlucky one this time round) is enabling that demonisation campaign.

The oil industry should be reformed. It won’t get reformed, because we’re too dependent on cheap oil, and the occasional disaster is collectively viewed as a fair price to pay for the ability to pay under $3 a gallon for petrol. Especially when the disaster in question doesn’t happen to Americans: how many people are even aware of Shell’s operations in Nigeria?

But the US’s anti-BP crusade has nothing to do with any efforts to reform the industry – it’s an attempt to distract Americans from the fact that the disaster is primarily their own fault (and that nothing will be done about it in the long term because the American people won’t stand for expensive petrol), and to steal some foreign assets into the bargain.

So unless you’re a stars-and-stripes-waving redneck, don’t join the anti-BP campaign just because you think the world would be a nicer place if companies were nicer…

Update: Turbo-LOL.

Plastic bags are great – don’t ban them

It’s generally a good rule of thumb to oppose anything that’s favoured by the Daily Mail, assuming you have the slightest interest in economics or liberty, even if it doesn’t obviously sound like a bad idea. Sunny at Liberal Conspiracy would’ve done well to follow the rule:

In one stroke the Daily Mail has put [banning plastic supermarket bags] back on the political agenda and for that it must be applauded. The question is, will politicians heed?

Why is Sunny wrong? Well, plastic supermarket bags, while they make for oh-so-sad photostories of suffering seagulls, cause next to no net environmental damage. The government-funded Waste Resources Action Programme has said that because they are generally re-used as rubbish/storage bags, and because they are less environmentally costly to make than paper bags, they are the greenest current alternative.

It gets worse. Plastic bags are of the most use to people who’re shopping on foot or by public transport; if you’re going by car you can keep your shopping in boxes, or keep a selection of Bags For Life in your boot.

But if your shopping is done as part of a public transport commute [work -> shop -> home], which is the least environmentally damaging way to do it, then you’ve got a problem if plastic bags are banned: paper bags aren’t much use for holding things for more than the distance from checkout to car, which is why they’re popular in America, and carrying a Bag For Life wherever you go on the off-chance you might want to do some shopping at some point is hardly practical.

If you want to impose a tax on shopping that helps the environment, then tax supermarkets £5 for every car that parks in their car parks – giving them the choice of whether or not to pass it on to the consumer, of course. If you want to drive people off public transport and into their cars, while also increasing emissions associated with bag production (but saving a couple of cute animals – so that makes it all worthwhile), then support the plastic bag tax…