A graph is worth a thousand pictures

I have a little saying about the American National Geographic magazine. It goes: "look at the pictures, don't bother with the words". The photography is invariably of a very high standard, albeit of a particular style, but the text is too often devoted to selling the "American line" on things and is sometimes disturbingly right of centre. Occasionally, however, it can excel itself as it has with the April 2014 edition. The edition covers the world's consumption of coal, and features a graph showing different nation's use of this non-sustainable resource, first in the year 2000 and then in 2011. For some reason it didn't include figures from the UK, though I believe our use was low in 2000 and less in 2011. Some industrialised countries like us have used less in the intervening 11 years, some, like South Africa and Japan slightly more. India is using nearly twice as much as it was, whereas the US itself, using commendable and uncharacteristic restraint, is using about 5% less.


But the really stunning thing revealed in the graph is the block for "Red" China (perhaps it should be called "Black China") In 2000 it was using only using slightly more than the US, about 1.5 billion tonnes a year. In 2011 this figure had rocketed to 3.8 billion tonnes- in fact, China is currently consuming as much coal as the rest of the world put together. Could this have something to do with the perma-smog that envelops Beijing and much of its industrial heartland, smog which regularly drifts with impunity across international borders and pollutes the air of Korea, Thailand and many other nations? Damn right. And damned wrong. This crime against the atmosphere must be stopped before it's too late- for all of us.


Some scientists say there is a major tipping point approaching for the planet: 1 trillion tonnes of coal burned. It is believed that this immense figure will put enough greenhouse gas (ie CO2) into the atmosphere to guarantee a temperature rise of greater than 2 degrees- and that spells disaster. As of 2012 the total was 545 billion tonnes. But if China continues to consume coal at its current rate, the 1 trillion tonne rubicon will be crossed in 2040.


Something has to be done. We know China cares little for dumb animals. We know they care little for ordinary human beings. It is now clear they care little about the Earth itself, except in so far as how they can most profitably exploit it. And while the rest of  the world is struggling to get its act together and become a greener place, China is plunging into a policy that seems to be ensuring its doom.


Go green China, damn you. You have a right to develop, but not at the cost of the Earth!

Lisbon: city of marble and gold

Just home from a four day citybreak in Portugal's ancient capital, where a search to find anything that wasn't destroyed in the devastating earthquake of 1755 was sumptuously rewarded. Somehow I have lived for 63 years without encountering Portugal- a yawning gap in my cultural education which has at last been filled, and not a moment too soon.


Lisbon features a number of architectural wonders that survived the great quake which occurred on All Saint's Day, 1755, though some do show terrible scars from that fateful day. There is a marvellous old abbey, the Igrejo do Carmo, built in the 14th century, which was packed with worshippers on the day of the great quake when the roof fell in and killed everyone present. Now it has the same atmosphere of lost grandeur one finds at, say, Tintern Abbey. Other churches did rather better. Another church, the Igregia de Sao Domingos, built in 1242, survived the great earthquake of 1755 as well as an earlier one in 1531, only to be razed by fire in 1959. Today much of its marble superstructure is blackened as if by soot. I touched some panels, but the soot did not come off on my fingers: the blackness had penetrated right into the pores of the marble columns..


By contrast, the Igreja de Sao Roque, built in the 16th century and funded by gold brought back by Vasco da Gama from the Indies, has endured the ravages of time almost unscathed. It features a number of chapels dedicated to various saints, each one more gaudy and extravagant than the last. Some almost seem to drip with gold, while others feature gorgeous panels of malachite and lapis lazuli, studded with sapphires and other precious stones The overall effect is overwhelming, and to be honest, almost obscene. While we were there, a party of Chinese were shown around. They wandered behind their guide in total silence, their faces motionless, masks of incomprehension. I almost felt sorry for them.


But a fourth church, the Mostairo dos Jeronimos, requires no intellectual understanding to exert its hypnotic effect. Constructed in a unique style known as Manueline, after King Manuel "the fortunate" (so named because he personally was the recipient of much of the gold) it is a massive edifice, built entirely from marble brought from the nearby quarries, seems to tower into the skies, supported on giant columns designed to be reminiscent of ship's masts, while everywhere there are reminders of all things maritime: columns seemingly of rope, fan vaulting resembling sails, elsewhere, marble oars, marble rivets, marble cannon. This is perhaps appropriate. Remember, like Britain, Portugal is a tiny country which made itself fabulously wealthy by plundering the less developed world, and like us, they did it through their mastery of the seas. So, as we might expect, the church, which in my opinion ranks among the great sights of Europe, was built on the rapine of the burgeoning Portuguese Empire of the 16th century. This began with Vasco da Gama's astounding, and exceedingly lucrative discovery of a sea route to the Indies, a feat which established him as one of history's immortals, as well as getting him in real good with his King and Queen, owing to the tonnes of gold he brought back with him. His tomb enjoys pride of place in this mighty palace, as well it might...


On day three there was one marvellous, surreal moment. Wearing a broad-brimmed hat I was being careful as I walked over the vents from the metro, but on one occasion I was neglectful and my hat flew off and went behind me. I turned round and looked down, but the hat wasn't there. Then I looked up and there it was, floating in the air at head height; in fact it remained suspended in mid-air, gently wafting up and down in the updraught for a number of seconds before finally falling to the ground.




Lisbon was a revelation for us: fantastic architecture, warm and welcoming locals, a pleasant temperature that was never less than seven degrees higher than at home in Cardiff, and affordable prices, a welcome change from our last holiday in Norway, where a burger and fries can set you back £30. Of course there wasn't time in 4 days to do all we wanted: the coast, the interior with its marble quarries (some people go specifically to visit them, apparently) and megalithic artefacts remain to be explored I tell you man, we'll be back!


STOP PRESS: BREAKING NEWS! MISSING PLANE STILL MISSING

Regarding the mssing plane: where is it anyway?

 Malaysian airliner flight MH 370 has now been  missing for a week, and although in a friend's opinion  this is now a non-story (that is, it isn't really news to say: "missing plane still missing") the fact remains that this is an unprecedented event in modern times.


One of the most intriguing parts of the story to my eyes is the way we have been drip-fed information over the seven days, only for that information to be discredited within a few days, or sometimes hours, then sometimes to be recredited- all very odd. First the engines were giving out data they were still working hours after its transponders stopped transmitting.  Then they weren't. Then they were again. What the hell is going on?


Then we have the gradually increasing area of search, going from a few hundred, to a few thousand, and now to a few million square miles. As I understand it (and I don't) the plane has been lost in an area as large as, or possibly even larger than, the United States, that is more than 3 million square miles. Which makes the task so gargantuan as to be virtually impossible. The conspiracy nuts are going on about alien abduction, which right now is beginning to look as good an explanation as any (and I never thought I'd hear myself saying that), though now my money is on some deliberate human intervention: who knows? Maybe it's sitting in a hangar in North Korea. Maybe the Malaysian authorities know more than they're letting on. Maybe it has crashed in some incredibly remote location. Maybe not...


We just haven't got a clue. And that's what makes it news. Of a rather strange brand I grant you, but still news.

All hail the winter paralympics (just not the coverage)

Disabled sport has undergone an extraordinary transformation in recent years, and, it is to be hoped, this is reflected in a greater tolerance and understanding of disabled people and their problems- which in the last analysis is what disabled competitive sport is all about. This morning it has emerged that that there has been more interest in the Paralympic winter games than in the summer games in Beijing 6 years ago. There is still some sales resistance out there though. One of my closest friends feels there is a paucity in terms of athleticism in the Paralympic disciplines, though it may simply be he is too busy to have devoted the time to have seen that he is wrong about that. I find the athleticism, skill and sheer competitive elan  displayed in both winter and summer games to be every bit as high as among the able bodied athletes, given the obvious differences.


Par example, I would cite the skiers, who race down the same mountains as the able bodied ones, but lacking limbs, eyesight or some other vital attribute. And because of these disabilities, they risk even greater injury than their able bodied colleagues. Witness the sit-ski super G event on Monday, when the American skier Alana Miller came a hideous cropper at over 100 kph and had to be helicoptered off the piste. Strapped into her extremely dangerous-looking contraption she was far less able to protect herself than her able-bodied friends would have been.


But this brings me to my second point: the coverage. Immediately following this accident, when we could see the poor girl was not moving, and we, the viewers, needed the closure to see if she was OK in any sense of the word, we were denied that opportunity by the programme maker's decision to cut to a commercial break. These are small issues, but vital ones. It's like the handshake at the end of a tennis match: I need to see that, to show that really the whole thing wasn't really a fight to the death, that the opponents have risen above the competition and shown their intrinsic respect for one another. Likewise in this event, we need to see what happened after an accident- crashes are, let's face it, sensational television, and the aftermath is too, and for very human reasons. So, how was the decision made? Was it simply that the director thought "there's going to be a little gap in the action, so there's time for an ad break", or was there some more sinister, politically correct thinking going on, deciding that watching Alana Miller's rescue was somehow unseemly and not appropriate to be shown on television? I do hope not. Because if they can show someone being assisted after a big crash in say, the downhill race on the Hannenkalm and not during a disabled skier's race, then that's actually discrimination.  Regrettably, this is not my only criticism of Channel 4's coverage


In 2012, and rightly so in my view, a brave decision was made to give the award for best coverage, not to the BBC's coverage of the able-bodied games, but to Channel 4's coverage of the Paralympics. The BBC gave far too much air-time to talking heads, especially the execrable John Inverdale, whereas C4 concentrated more on the events themselves. But in Sochi C4 has made the same mistake: every time I go onto their coverage it seems we are in the studio watching people talking about the games, and far too little of the games themselves. Will Adam Hills and the gang discuss this at the next "The Last Leg" on Friday night, considering the fact that I am not exactly alone in my reservations about its coverage, or will they be reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them? We shall see...

Official: eating food is harmful to health

That's right. As you have no doubt heard, now all three major food groups, which I leaned at school were essential to a healthy, balanced diet (along with a smattering of vitamins and trace elements- and, by the way, how long before those too are condemned as being bad for us?), are harmful to health. Fat raises cholesterol, leading to the build-up of plaque in arterial walls and increasing the risk of heart attack and stroke. Carbohydrates, all of which are converted into glucose by the body, lead to obesity and increase the risk of diabetes. And now, even protein is implicated in causing cancer.


So where does that lead us? Up the proverbial creek I would have said. Basically, we can't eat anything without its endangering our lives. Shit!


There is a group of people in southern California who are determined to live to 120, or even more. In order to achieve their aim, they take daily and rigorous exercise, running at least 10K and/or working out at the gym for upwards of two hours. They eat, I am told, no more than 1200 calories a day, the vast majority of which consisting of fresh fruits and raw vegetables. They assiduously avoid all processed food, which they believe to be anathema. And from what I hear, it may be working. A number of them have already advanced well into their 80s and are looking remarkably fit and svelte, if a little leathery in appearance. I have little doubt they will achieve their ultimate aim, as long as their genes are good (that has always been a critical factor in my experience) and also provided they didn't live too profligate lives before they adopted their ascetic, almost monk-like existence.


So what can we ordinary norms do? I would say, get regular exercise, though not so much we end up compromising our joints, thus rendering further exercise impossible, and try to eat a balanced diet, that is the exact same one as was proposed in my biology class in the mid 1960s, but, and this is truly important, avoiding eating too much of anything. We shouldn't smoke or do too many other drugs, including alcohol; we should try to adopt a positive attitude towards life and death, and above all, we should trust to good fortune to keep us safe


In conclusion then, as I like to say on these occasions: good luck with that!

Let's hear it for Piers Morgan. No, really

No one, perhaps least of all the cocky one himself could probably believe it when CNN offered him the chance to sit in Larry King's chair as their front line celebrity interviewer. Larry himself was considered next door to canonisation by the time he retired (I was never sure why; he always seemed too safe, if you understand me), and Piers was just some overconfident Brit with a lot of celebrity connections, but still he got the job, despite his embarrassment following the fake soldier story he signed off on in the Daily Mirror where he was editor at the time.


Now he has been fired again, this time apparently over poor ratings. But that isn't the whole story. Ratings have been falling all over cable television in America recently, and now some are wondering whether it might not have been more to do with his banging on about two issues very close to America's heart, and about which they don't take kindly to criticism. They are, of course, the famous 2nd Amendment, which permits every citizen the right to bear arms, and their ludicrous health system, which allows upwards of 40 million Americans to have no health care at all, in what remains the world's richest country. So, Piers may well have said, you can have a gun, but you can't get health care unless you stump up the cash- and if you haven't got that, you can just go away and die. Thus he was in sharp contrast to two Brits who have done rather better on the other side of the Herring Pond, viz. Posh and Becks, who whatever else they have done, have not ventured into such contentious areas.


These issues were frequently aired by PM, and I suspect it was these which led to his downfall.
So, although there is much to revile about the man, maybe we should cut him a little slack on this one. And don't worry, he'll be back soon, with a new chat show or whatever. You can't keep a good man down. Or Piers Morgan.

Left versus right: which is better?

Fight! That's what appears to be happening in Ukraine right now. (not The Ukraine please note; apparently that's not politically correct, even though we are The UK and they're The US. Whatever: I digress)


Anyhoo, in Ukraine we have the right, who seek closer ties with The West and the EU, and the left. who wish to cuddle up with Putin's Russia. Is it really that simple? I doubt it.


The origins of the terms "right" and "left" go back to the eighteenth century House of Commons, when the Whigs and Tories chose one or other side, pretty much randomly as I understand it, which side of the chamber to sit on. Then the terms became preserved, as it were, in aspic. In those days the Whigs were the party of the aristos and landowners while the Tories were, well, pretty much the same thing. Both parties were exceedingly right wing by today's standards, but the labels stuck, the Tories gradually becoming morphed into what we think of as the right today, with first the Liberals and then the Labour party assuming the mantle of the left. .


What of today? Now we find the terms less helpful. People on the far left and far right come together on some issues, such as membership of the EU and the preservation of individual freedoms. Anarchists, traditionally thought of belonging to the extreme left (though falsely, as you will rarely find them in agreement with socialists and communists) find strange bedfellows with members of the Tea Party, both of which groups believe, for very different reasons, of course, that there is too much government.


So I believe that rather than a straight line from left to right, a better understanding could be obtained by thinking of a square, with, say, the Tea Party at the top left and totalitarian groups like the Nazis at the top right, while at the bottom left of the square we would find the anarchists, while the bottom right would be occupied by totalitarian governments like the Chinese or North Koreans.


Where do you fit? I lean towards the lower left quadrant; Tony Benn and Dennis Skinner would be somewhere near the middle of the lower line of the square. Peter Hitchens and perhaps IDS would be nearer the upper left corner, while Putin and the Chinese leadership would be nearer the upper right corner.


Conclusion: left and right? it ain't that simple.