Ethics is about doing what is right, regardless of the cost to oneself.

One of the authentic Irish heroes is Tom Crean of Anascaul, Co. Kerry, who went on Antarctic expeditions with Scott and Shackleton.  When he and two others – Lashly and Evans – were hauling a sled back to base in deep soft snow across crevasses in ferociously cold and stormy weather, Evans collapsed and had to be carried; food and other supplies ran out; they were exhausted, starving and suffering from snow blindness.

Evans begged Crean and Lashly to leave him and save themselves, and doing so seemed to be their only hope of survival.  But they refused.

In the end, Crean went a further 60 kilometres on his own, got help, and all three survived.  And in a number of other cases, he continued to demonstrate this combination of selflessness, courage, calmness under extreme pressure, good luck and doing what was right rather than what was expedient or in his own interest.

The most powerful piece of writing on environmental ethics comes from Aldo Leopold.  In his ‘Sand County Almanac’, he makes the point that the human ethical view evolves.  He uses as an example the fact that when god-like Odysseus returned from the wars in Troy, he hanged a dozen slave-girls of his household, whom he suspected of misbehaviour during his absence.  They were property, to be disposed of as he saw fit.

But 3,000 years later, in most parts of the world, his action would be judged unethical, reprehensible and wrong.  He goes on to argue that: “All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts.  His instincts prompt him to compete for his place in that community, but his ethics prompt him also to cooperate (perhaps in order that there may be a place to compete for)…  The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land.”

In our own time, we can observe in many countries the evolution of the ethic that today says it is unacceptable to smoke tobacco products in enclosed public spaces.

And so ‘caring for God’s creation’ has become part of the ethical compass of most religions and ethical systems.

But going from a broad conviction to an ethic that influences behaviour requires us to translate philosophy into guidelines for action.  Empathy and understanding the processes of science are prerequisites.

In ‘A Theory of Justice’, John Rawls proposed that we should adopt values as if we operated behind a veil of ignorance, and had no idea at the outset of our lives where we will end up: “No one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like”.

He concludes that if an individual does not know how he will end up in his own conceived society, he is not likely to privilege any one class of people, but rather develop a scheme of justice that treats all fairly; we would all adopt a maximin strategy, defined as one that would maximise the prospects of the least well-off.  Specifically, if there was one chance in seven that we would end up amongst the one billion poorest citizens on the planet – afflicted by hunger, malnutrition, disease, lack of access to electricity and very vulnerable to the impacts of climate change – what would our priorities be?

The problem, of course, is that we do know our fortune and our social status, and so we are invited to imagine, and to act upon, a situation that does not exist.  Understanding enough about science and how knowledge evolves to support appropriate public action is an important requirement for coherent and ethical citizenship.

A good start would be to require every schoolchild to understand the history of science and the role of interest groups in addressing some of the key public interest challenges of our time, including – for example – the implications for public health of smoking tobacco products, producing and using asbestos, using chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and radioactive materials, and greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

The cycle of discovery and the reactions thereto resemble, in some respects, the five stages of response to terminal disease: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.  It also fosters a better appreciation of uncertainty; of thresholds; and of the balance of probabilities: we can never prove unambiguously that smoking causes increased incidence of cancer, that ozone depletion is responsible for increased incidence of melanoma, etc.  Understanding emerges as scientists develop theory and compile and interrogate data, including comparing control samples with others that are affected; testing propositions in the lab and in the field; replicating where possible; discussing margins of error; and drawing inferences.

It’s important to create the right incentives, get the policy right and – where we can do so – enhance economic performance while we protect the environment.

But, in the end, action on our part is needed and this sometimes requires sacrifice.  Next time we argue that the burden of protecting our planet should be passed onto someone else, we should think of Tom Crean.

Ireland is on the Bold Step, the place where naughty children sit to do without, and to reflect on their misdeeds. And the step is getting crowded; Iceland and Greece are already there, and Portugal, Spain, Belgium and even Italy are being scolded, and may soon have to be accommodated.

To mix metaphors, the Euro members are like 16 engines joined together in a train, heading towards the precipice. Ireland and Greece are at the front, and have applied the brakes, with the advice and support of those behind, but it is not clear whether it will be enough to stop and then reverse the momentum towards destruction.

We are in a trauma induced by the serious and sudden imbalance in the public finances, the failure of the banks and the consequent pressure on the Euro, which in turn was followed by a long-term loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the European Commission (EC) and the European Central Bank (ECB).

The origin of this failure lies in part on seriously inadequate systems of personal, political and financial accountability. It will take a forensic and mature analysis of causes and their remedies to tell the full story, but in the meantime, we can outline a few plausible propositions that should be considered to improve accountability.

These are specific to the Irish case, but have wider application, and are perhaps of particular relevance for small countries that are very open to international trade:

1.    Don’t necessarily believe, or depend on, the analyses and advice that comes from esteemed international authorities and rating agencies.

Honohan  points out that both the IMF, which reported in 2006 -  ‘reflecting their good performance, the major banks received upper medium to high grade ratings from the international rating agencies’ – and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2008) – ‘the regulator has clearly identified the major vulnerabilities and taken action to mitigate them’ – simultaneously provided support for the status quo and for hugely misplaced complacency, and undermined those who were questioning its validity and reality; they in effect provided an imprimatur for a disastrous situation.

Their intervention was not neutral, it was negative: it would have been far better if they had said nothing. The execrable performance of the rating agencies is irksome, and the fact that they continue to be taken seriously surprising; the same outfits that assured us that all was well in the best of all possible worlds are now advising the opposite, apparently without a hint of embarrassment on their part, or misgivings on the part of the investment community about their judgement. They give new meaning to the expression ‘brass neck’.

Why did this happen? Were these agencies lied to? Were they lazy, and simply accepted the data they were given? Did they focus only on the ‘major banks’, not recognising that one smaller bank can and did in effect torpedo the entire system? Are they reflecting productively on their failures? Could it happen again?

2.    Recognise the importance of the mandate given to regulators. Policy failure sustains and supports regulatory failure – the terms of reference for financial regulation must exclusively favour fiscal prudence

Honohan makes the following point: “The Financial Regulator and the Central Bank were mandated by legislation (emphasis added) to pursue two goals – financial stability and promotion of the financial sector – which may well have been in conflict. The Financial Regulator was in a difficult position as the possible adverse effects on discouraging inward investment in the Irish Financial Services Centre were more immediate and real than what were perceived as more distant concerns about financial stability (emphasis added). While the stability goal was given explicit priority, the potential conflict between the two goals complicated policy choice”. He goes on to note that “intrusive demands from line staff could be and were set aside after direct representations were made to senior regulators.”

The argument is heard that the regulator was set up to regulate, and that therefore culpability lies entirely in regulatory failure. But the policy system gave the regulator two horses to ride, and the incentives were such that when their paths diverged……This mixed mandate was regarded as a key to the development of the Irish Financial Services Centre, but in the event it probably ended up destroying far more jobs than it has created. ‘Cute hoorism’ is an expression used in Ireland to capture the application of cunning to advance self interest in ways that are devious and lack transparency. Although the mixed mandate was given with the best of intentions, it turns out to have been a little too clever for our own good.

3.    Support politicians who are willing to read, to understand complexity, and the tradeoffs involved, and to communicate choices and decisions effectively.

There is a tendency in all democracies to disparage the ‘political class’ and to deride all politicians as being simultaneously venal, incompetent and dishonest.

This universal disparagement was expressed nicely by William S Burroughs: “Where is the cavalry, the spaceship, the rescue squad? We have been abandoned here on this planet ruled by lying bastards of modest brain power. No sense. Not a tiny modicum of good intentions. Lying worthless bastards”. And the ever-acerbic Gore Vidal is not optimistic about the prospects for new entrants of quality: “Politics is a very interesting game for people who have no talent, and have nothing much to say, and wish to advance themselves with a minimum. It’s for very energetic mediocrities. And, happily, our supply is practically inexhaustible.”

But the truth is that, as in most walks of life, in politics there is probably a normal distribution of talent and altruism, with a relatively small number of the truly odious, a large middle ground of ‘muddlers-through’, and a small number of outstanding talents. We need to ensure that enough of the latter get through to provide the ballast for good decisions.

We are grappling with this in Ireland at present, where it is argued that our proportional representation, multi-seat constituency structure results in intense competition within parties, and this in turn leads to the election of people whose only interest and concern is the local. And this fosters a populist impulse that drives very popular but ultimately very destructive decisions. One example: uniquely in the Western world, we in Ireland in recent years abolished both property taxes and water charges on domestic dwellings, with the missing revenue substituted for by very high transaction taxes when property was sold. The outcome was a very inefficient water management system and a huge hole in government income when property transactions and prices collapsed. But this ‘look ma, no hands’ syndrome was and is extremely popular, and difficult to reverse even as we fall to the ground. In a recent bye-election in South West Donegal, so far as I know, no candidate on the doorstep was asked if they had read and understood the Honohan report, which should in my view be required reading for anyone serving in the Irish Parliament today.

But finding a better way is not easy, bearing in mind that the straight vote system in the US has produced a seriously deluded political class that thinks it is possible to simultaneously fund a trillion dollar war, reduce taxes and balance the Federal budget.

4.    Write things down, so that there is clarity as to who recommended what, when and on what basis.

During the Second World War, Winston Churchill always wrote down his instructions to his generals, so that there would be no ambiguity as to what was decided, and to ensure accountability. If they acted on the instructions, and the outcome turned out to be disastrous, then he took the blame. If they did not do as instructed, they were culpable and would bear the consequences.

In the Irish policy system, the politicians are responsible to the electorate, and are the ultimate decision-makers, but in effect they depend on their civil servants and the related agencies for advice. But it is impossible to know how good the choices presented are, the quality of the underlying analysis, the extent to which such is underpinned by access to state of the art expertise and research nationally and internationally.

We fear the worst, and hope for the best, but have no objective basis for endorsing excellence or disparaging incompetence.  It is a system that gives the upper hand to mediocrity – in the absence of transparency, he or she who shouts loudest and substitutes vehemence and certainty for facts and nuance will usually trump the reflective and informed.

5.    Support and indulge evidence based analysis that goes against the prevailing wisdom.

Some economists – including Anthony Murphy (2005) and Morgan Kelly (2007) – flagged the unreality of the housing boom and its implications, and the Economic and Social Research Institute dog did bark, but inconsistently and sotto voce. In 2002, Peter Clinch, Brendan Walsh and myself in After the Celtic Tiger, O’Brien Press, did flag the end of the boom and why, which was gently derided by Frank Barry writing in late 2005 who noted that ‘The regional perspective suggests that Ireland’s period of rapid growth need not necessarily cause a halt once convergence has been achieved. This is borne out by the return to rapid growth even after some analysts such as Clinch, Convery and Walsh had declared the Celtic Tiger dead.’

Our findings were indeed temporarily confounded by the property-led growth, and we failed in our analysis to anticipate what turned out to be the catastrophic implications of the next wave of growth for the financial system and the macro economy. But most of us had either nothing to say, or joined in the ‘soft landing’ chant that crowded out more cautious voices. We all like to take credit for prescience and influence, which are generally illusory.

Stephen Leacock is my favourite exponent of this syndrome: “When I state that my lectures were followed almost immediately by the Union of South Africa, the banana riots in Trinidad and the Turco-Italian war, I think the reader can form some opinion of their importance.”

There was an implicit understanding that once we joined the Euro, macro-economic management was somebody else’s problem, ignoring the reality that in fact the removal of the instruments of interest rate and exchange rates made getting fiscal and financial management right crucial to our well being.  So overall, the economical profession earns at best a C+ for performance.

We will eventually get off the ‘bold step’. It remains to be seen whether we and others will learn why we ended up there, and act accordingly.

Brian O’Nolan, variously known as Flann O’Brien and Myles na gCopaleen, was one of Ireland’s great satirists, a worthy successor to Jonathan Swift. He is also one of University College Dublin’s (UCD) most distinguished graduates, having studied there from 1929 to 1932.

As a student, he was the founder of the newspaper Blather, and its first editorial captures his persona: “Blather is here. As we advance to make our bow, you will look in vain for signs of servility or of any desire to please. We are an arrogant and depraved body of men. We are as proud as bantams, and as vain as peacocks. …In regard to politics, all our rat-like cunning will be directed towards making Ireland fit for the depraved readers of Blather to live in…..We have probably said enough, perhaps too much. Anyhow, you have got a rough idea of the desperate class of men you are up against. Maybe you don’t like us? A lot we care what you think.”

The next time you are reading a worthy, but inevitably inoffensive, forgettable, boring and platitudinous Mission Statement, recall that Blather’s, written eighty years ago by a twenty year old UCD student, is the gold standard.

Flann O’Brien should be recreational reading for the mission now in Ireland from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the European Central Bank (ECB) and the European Commission (EC) as they design, and then negotiate a ‘bail out’, or, more accurately, a contingency loan, for our sad and pathetic banks, that have given new meaning to the word ‘feckless.’

In his Irish Times’ column (available in Flann O’Brien’s, The Best of Myles, Flamingo, London, 1993) written during the Second World War, – an event known locally as ‘The Emergency’ – Flann O’Brien often quoted ‘the brother’ as the oracle with all the solutions, including how to deal with the shortage of energy and food:

“The brother has it all worked out. How we can get through the war here in the Free State. The brother has a plan. We all go to bed for a week every month. Every single man, woman and child in the country. Cripples, drunks, policemen, watchmen – everybody. Nobody is allowed to be up. No newspapers, buses, pictures or any other class of amusement allowed at all…… D’ye see, when nobody is up you save clothes, shoes, rubber, petrol, coal, turf, time and everything we’re short of. And food too remember… It’s work that makes you hungry. Stop in bed, and all you’ll ask for is an odd slice of bread. Or a slice of fried bread to make your hair curly, says you. ..You’d save a quarter of everything, and that would be enough to see us right.”

The ‘going to bed’ option may commend itself once more, as the IMF, ECB and EC constrain and direct us to a better place.

And people who are follicularly challenged, like myself, may wish to try the fried bread route to a fine head of curls – if the cholesterol doesn’t get us first.

Brilliance, total irreverence, lateral thinking, a touch of anarchy but a respect for evidence, and great courage are what make great researchers. And a sense of underlying modesty and humour helps. Flann O’Brien and his generation had those qualities, but they did not have the resources or the encouragement to turn their hand to science and innovation.

But today’s generation of students do. Instead of going to bed as the solution to scarcity, finding ways of making more with less through more efficient use of energy and other resources, using information and smart policies to wean ourselves away from the use of fossil fuels that challenge the health of our planet, finding ways to harness and deliver biomass; wind; wave and sun that are cheap enough to be realistic choices, and that protects the interest of the five billion of us who don’t have ‘western’ standards of living, are the key challenges and opportunities of our time.

At a Globe Forum in Dublin this week, the policy, research, enterprise, financial, ethical and social dimensions of these challenges were debated, by people who knew what they were talking about. A key is perseverance: maintaining the support and indulging the essential single mindedness and insularity that is necessary to achieve greatness in any field, while at the same time linking to the other pieces of the jigsaw that are essential if research is to be converted into new sorts of goods and services that help us all.

We in Ireland are working at getting right this mix and these connections. We are very late starters, and prioritisation is important. But we will get there.

Isaiah Berlin defined research as a “condition of resentful inactivity.” As our graduate students in UCD, and our partners in Trinity College Dublin work at moving from resentment to activity, for inspiration, they should keep by their side Flann O’Brien’s, The Best of Myles, and perhaps other of his works; and it should be recommended reading in our Innovation Academy which the two universities have established to educate and train researchers how to take the step towards innovation and enterprise.

This week, Professor Convery’s commentary is based on the recent conference on Environmental Tax Reform – organised by Comhar SDC in collaboration with the European Environment Agency, UCD Earth Sciences Institute, Smart Taxes and Feasta – which took place in Dublin on Thursday, 28th and Friday, 29th October. To view the commentary in PDF format click here.

Those who are aficionados of ‘West Wing’ know that the US President’s Chief of Staff is one of the most influential jobs in the world.  So why has Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s Chief of Staff, recently announced his resignation to run for the office of Mayor of Chicago?

No doubt there are a variety of personal reasons, but one stands out – leading and representing one of the great cities of the world is an important, high-profile job.  And you are not appointed to it by your fellow politicians: you have to seek and get a mandate directly from the people, for a specified term.

This is in contrast to the situation that, at present, prevails in Ireland: councillors are directly elected to represent a particular area and they, in turn, elect the Mayor from year to year.

This system has a number of disadvantages.  With revolving-door Mayors, there is no policy persistence at political level.  By the time the incumbent has learnt the rudiments of the job, it’s time to move on.

Calvin Coolidge makes the case for persistence: “Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence.  Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.  Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.  Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts.  Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.  The slogan ‘Press On’ has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.”

The current system in Ireland also means that the Mayor has no popular mandate or public profile, nationally or internationally.  Public empathy and recognition are lacking.  Dubliners will know the name of the Mayor of New York and London before they will know the name of their own; and their ignorance will neither worry nor embarrass them.  Citizens don’t care because – in their view – it doesn’t matter who holds the post.  And there is no line of Rahm Emanuels queuing up to vie for the job.

The current system severely limits the pool of aspirants; no ‘outsider’ need apply.  For a city like Dublin, which must compete successfully with the best internationally, these are not trivial disabilities.  And if Dublin fails, so does the nation.

Of course, there is no automatic link between direct election and openness to intellectual talent.  In his memoirs on the workings of Irish-dominated Tammany Hall in New York (‘He seen his opportunities and he took ‘em’), George Plunkitt makes the case against such pretension on practical grounds: “You can’t study human nature in books.  Books is a hindrance more than anything else.  If you have been to college, so much the worse for you.  You’ll have to unlearn all you learned before you can get right down to human nature, and unlearnin’ takes a lot of time.  Some men can never forget what they learned at college.  Such men may get to be district leaders by a fluke, but they never last.”

The key role in the current Irish system is held by the City Manager, who is appointed under public competition rules by an independent board, without input by the public or by politicians.  This system has its advantages: it provides people of competence to manage our cities.  And it limits the potential for appointing friends and associates to jobs.

The managerial system has also reduced the potential for corruption at local managerial level.  Most of the corruption that has occurred at this level in Ireland has been a consequence of payments by land-owners and developers to politicians to secure re-zoning of land, although there have also been occasional instances of managerial staff collusion.

A problem for public servants who haven’t been elected is one of having the legitimacy to lead; to impose their own stamp on what should happen and how.  A character in one of Ibsen’s plays captures their dilemma: “You don’t deserve to have your own beliefs, you’re a public servant.”

So can we get the best of both worlds – capture the huge benefits of direct mayoral election, without losing the benefits of the existing arrangement?

I believe we can.  We can maintain a strong managerial system, but with the key strategic and representational leadership and the interfaces with national government and international fora resting with the elected mayor.  Legislation should be as specific as possible, with the emphasis in this regard on responsibilities rather than rights.  And we should build in a review period, whereby system performance can be assessed, and adjusted to correct for any serious dysfunctions.

With a bit of luck – and at this point we deserve some – the Government’s proposals for a directly-elected Mayor of Dublin will be approved, and most of us will in time know who our Mayor is, and be proud.

‘Old age is not for sissies’.

Bette Davis provides a characteristic dash of realism to the chirpiness and slightly forced bonhomie that surrounds the positive ageing and age awareness movement. Ageing can be tough, and it doesn’t get easier over time.

And the challenges are both psychological and physical.  A hero in one of Turgenev’s novels observes that: “The young must have generalisations, conclusions…  A perfectly sincere man never suits them.  Try and tell young people you cannot give them the whole truth and they will not listen to you.”

This impatience with incompleteness is one characteristic that divides the generations.  Another is consciousness of the finiteness of time, which is peculiar to the older cohort.

It can induce a certain anxiety and urgency, but it also conveys a sort of liberation.  Hanne Finsen, who curated the late Matisse in the Louisiana Museum in Denmark, observed that: “Once great artists reach an advanced age, they often forget commercial considerations and display extraordinary freedom – an autumn flowering’.

Matisse, Titian and Monet painted into their 80s; Picasso and Chagal into their 90s.

Many of us finally achieve comfort in our own skins, and attain a composure and serenity that escaped us earlier – we have our own autumn flowering.

But Edward Said challenges the notion that old age always confers a spirit of reconciliation and serenity; in the late Beethoven and Ibsen, he discerns instead, “intransigence (the Arab word is ‘sumud’), difficulty and contradiction”, while Jonathan Swift remained, “unsatisfied, unappeased, un-reconciled” to the end.

And, as time becomes more precious, most reduce the hours spent with bores; egomaniacs; poltroons; the gratuitously acerbic; the pompous; the rude; the greedy and the selfish, and instead make more space for family; the vulnerable; the modest; the generous and the perceptive, and especially for those who bring curiosity; wisdom; openness to the surprise, and humour to life’s table.

Beckett had a challenging American friend who was described as “having the knack of putting you ill-at-ease at once”; she too was probably less indulged over time.

Physically, decline can be arrested and even reversed as joints, valves and other working parts are repaired and replaced.  But some ailments are still resistant to being ‘fixed’, and the trend line dips down eventually.  Peregrine Worsthorne took a very qualified view of his good fortune: “People of my age are lucky to be still alive, but only in the same way a lifer in prison is lucky to have escaped hanging”.

Most people of mature years say that they do not fear death, but they do have a horror of extreme and irreversible dependency.  And we know that the last year of life consumes between 10 and 40 per cent of total medical costs, depending on the jurisdiction, amongst rich countries – Netherlands towards the low end of the scale, the US towards the higher end – and on the assumptions about what costs are included.

This poses twin challenges: can we reduce these costs so that the overall sustainability of support can be improved; and how can we make the last year enjoyable?  What combination of interventions would allow us to say (or to think) as we breathed our last: “that was a pretty good last year”.

Engaging with such a thought experiment would include addressing the following: imagine that we reduced intensive care budgets by 10 per cent, and devoted the proceeds to the development and operation of hospice-type facilities?  How different would that last year be for most, and would we judge it to be better?

My guess is that the answer would be ‘yes,’ but we need to compile the evidence, and then act on it.

Samuel Johnson was persuaded that “had Sir Isaac Newton applied to poetry, he would have made a very fine epic poem… Sir, the man who has vigour may walk to the east just as well as the west, if he happens to turn his head that way”.

But genius in one area does not always transfer well to others.  Michael O’Leary is an Irishman of huge talent, who – as head of Ryanair – has transformed the way air travel is conducted in Europe.  Unfortunately, he has also turned his head to address the topic of climate change; according to a recent article in the Irish Independent, his vehemently expressed analysis goes as follows:

“Scientists argue there is global warming because they wouldn’t get half of the funding they get now if it turns out to be completely bogus…  The scientific community has nearly always been wrong in history anyway.  In the Middle Ages, they were going to excommunicate Galileo because the entire scientific community said the Earth was flat…  I mean, it is absolutely bizarre that the people who can’t tell us what the f**king weather is next Tuesday can predict with absolute precision what the f**king global temperatures will be in 100 years’ time.  It’s horses**t.”

On a per capita basis, Irish people use the word ‘f**k’ more frequently that anyone in the English-speaking world (although as a viewer of the great products of Home Box Office, one could conclude that the US is catching up fast), so his style is consistent with the local norm.  But his substance is not, and it is as wrong as it is possible to be.

Galileo’s findings were opposed by some of the local Aristotelians but, when his first great work was published in 1632, it was received with near universal acclaim by scientists all over Europe.  Far from saying that ‘the Earth is flat’, the substantive scientific community greeted his work with acclaim, recognising the validity, lucidity, elegance and insight of his contribution.

And the modern scientific method is all about making new propositions; testing them with theory and experience; rejecting, accepting, and modifying as the evidence allows, an idea captured centuries ago in Italy by an institution of learning known as the Accademia del Cimento, whose motto was ‘provando e riprovando’ – reject that which cannot be maintained in the light of reason and experience.

As physicist Richard Feynman puts it: “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your guess is or how smart you are or what your name is.  If your idea disagrees with experience, it’s wrong.  That’s all there is to it.”

And the greatest minds get things wrong.  Galileo wrongly poured scorn on Kepler’s suggestion that the moon was in some way concerned in the ebb and flow of the tides.

In 2001, the European Environment Agency published a book, ‘Late Lessons from Early Warnings: The Precautionary Principle, 1896-2000’, in which they document: the history of the identification of a series of environmental problems; the opposition – often virulent – from interests who either embraced ignorance (and ignorance always has a constituency) or had an interest in maintaining the status quo; the persistence and sometimes heroism of scientists in continuing to interrogate the data, challenge themselves and each other, stick to the evidence, publish findings, deal with accusations that they were artificially creating concerns to enrich themselves or their research budgets; the deepening of  our understanding; the enrichment of public understanding and the consequences in the form of behaviour and policy responses.

Examples where we can observe this cycle of quiet heroism by scientists as they challenged the conventional wisdom include: cholera and water supply; tobacco smoking; asbestos and deaths from mesothelioma; CFCs and ozone depletion; radiation and radioactive materials; thalidomide and DES.  Their work allows us all to enjoy a safer environment and live longer and more fulfilling lives.

And this same scientific method and these same kinds of people are working on climate change.  No doubt there are some charlatans and incompetents involved, but the process of ‘rejecting that which cannot be maintained in the light of reason and experience’ by serious scientists continues.  Our understanding of our planet, how it works, and what are the implications of increasing greenhouse gas emissions continues to deepen and widen.

Most conclude that climate change is underway; that human-originating greenhouse gas emissions are a cause, and that the poorest will suffer most from its impacts.  There is less consensus on how quickly change is happening; whether it will be sudden (the cliff) or gradual (the slope), and how easy or difficult it will be to adapt to.  And the stakes for our posterity are very high.

It is possible that O’Leary is right.  As James Fenton puts it, “Windbags can be right.  Aphorists can be wrong.  It’s a tough world”.  But it is likely that he is wrong, and we should plan on this basis.

As a leader of aviation he is an adornment.  As an analyst of climate change, he is an embarrassment.

Introduction

John Lloyd in the Financial Times has made the point that in countries where liberty is largely taken for granted, blogging is free and, often, vacuous. In countries where blogging is not taken for granted, it is – as the samizdat writers were in the Soviet Union – of huge interest (most of all to the authorities) and often of high quality, since words must be weighed with care. If we look to blogs for wisdom or revelation, we will usually be disappointed. If we go to them for company, we are likely to find it.

Blogs and websites bring people together. They aggregate interest groups and interested individuals, and they do so very quickly. Those who blog put time and effort into writing and (occasionally) reading, and such effort is rarely remunerated.

The Irish Economy web site (www.irisheconomy.ie) was created and is managed by Philip Lane, Professor of International Macroeconomics at Trinity College, Dublin [http://www.philiplane.org/] as a forum for the profession as the tidal waves of budget deficits and banking crisis hit Ireland’s shores simultaneously. Is it a source of revelation and wisdom, or a cosy snug to which like-minded souls retreat in hard times for some pub talk? It does get some attention from the national and international media, so it is worth having a look at the contributors and how they and the blog operates by touching on the links with newspapers; raising some questions; and identifying some gaps. A key conclusion is that our understanding of the relative credibility and overall performance of contributors (and commentators) will be seriously enhanced once economics students have done a substantive ex post analysis and post their findings on the Irish Economy blog.

The contributors and how it works

The blog has 28 active or formerly active contributors, drawn from University College Dublin (UCD); Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI); Trinity College Dublin (TCD);  National University of Ireland Maynooth (NUIM);  National University of Ireland Galway (NUIG); Queens University Belfast and Queens University Kingston Ontario. Of these, three bloggers– Alan Ahearne, Cathal Guiomard and Patrick Honohan – have become inactive since moving on to be the adviser to the Minister for Finance, Aviation Regulator and Governor of the Central Bank respectively. Trying to access activity for four of those listed as contributors – Alan Barrett (ESRI), Frances Ruane (ESRI), Olive Sweetman (NUIM) and Paul Devereaux (UCD) – produces an ‘Error 404’ message, and Colin Scott’s details are accessed when Ron Davies’ details are sought.

There are four bloggers who post an average of one or more posts per week (number in brackets) – Karl Whelan (4.29), Richard Tol (3.33), Philip Lane (2.50) and Kevin O’Rourke (1.07).  Meanwhile, a cluster of eight people blog, on average,  above 0.30 per week.  These include Liam Delaney (0.62), John McHale (0.43), Edgar Morgenroth (0.39), Brendan Walsh (0.35), Alan Matthews (0.34), John Fitz Gerald (0.33), Gregory Connor (0.32), Colm McCarthy (0.31). In terms of volume – and no doubt quality -  the loss of Ahearne (0.69) and Honohan (1.15) are notable, although Honohan makes a continuing imprint indirectly, with for example his interview with the Telegraph giving rise to 169 comments.  There are no women represented in this most active group of 12, and only two in the group of 28. As one would expect, very few of the contributors – only Colin Scott (Law) and Sean O Riain (Sociology) – are not economists. All but two of the contributors are in jobs paid for by the Irish tax payer.

The web site is clearly laid out.  The home page signposts you to  recent posts; a categories section, where you can access contributions and comments by subject area (there are 25 subjects listed); list of contributors where you can access blogger details, including CVs; links; and an archives section which dates back  to December 2008. There is also a provision for comment which, in order to submit a comment successfully, you have to leave email and name but can use a pseudonym (names used include Irishpancake, Tecumseh, 2Pack, SlaneMan and Bazza).

In a trawl through the environment category, topics addressed recently  were (the numbers of comments in brackets): wasting money on roads (95);public service obligation (PSO) to subsidize generation of electricity from peat fired and wind powered electric plants (76); economics voodoo and climate policy (59); electric vehicles in Spain (56); incineration again (44); and wave power (41). The banking crisis topic area attracts the largest commentariat, with over 100 comments on a number of contributions in this area.

Presumably many people read without commenting; there are no data publicly available as to the extent of the readership for any particular blog.

The Importance of Newspapers

Many of the contributions are triggered by newspaper reports. This seems to give the lie to the notion that Blogs will replace newspapers. At least in this case, the bloggers depend on the latter as the hook for many of their contributions. But the traffic goes both ways. Irish Times’ writers, Sarah Carey and Frank McDonald, both drew on blogs by Richard Tol and Edward Morgenroth respectively to anchor recent stories in their newspaper. And Sarah Carey, in another blog, made the wider point: Irish Economy is “driven by the demand for qualified opinion. We are in an economic crisis, and newspaper editors suddenly discovered they had no economists on staff! The academics could write all the blogs they want–but the financial crisis created the audience.” And the economist bloggers really work for their audience. They tend to notice things normal, mainstream journalists don’t that end up coming into the mainstream. Irish Economy is doing what everyone thought blogs would do. But, in Ireland anyway, this blog is unique. The fact that this one blog succeeds shows why the others have failed.” http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/26/ireland-blogs-twitter-media-opinions-columnists-trevor-butterworth.html#readerComments.

Questions

The following questions arise:

1.    Is it sustainable? Most of the work – and it is considerable, requiring initial input and then reaction to the comments – is done by the 12 apostles, who are mostly seniors drawn from the professoriat, who are paid by the State, and for whom tenure and promotion are not an issue. Blog fatigue is a risk, and new recruits of high calibre may be hard to find. Only one of the Diaspora – John McHale, Queens, Canada – is a commentator.

2.    Why do the contributors generally stay in their own silos, and don’t interact with one another? There is some cross-over in regard to commentators.  It would be good to see more between contributors.

3.    Why are women not more active? Do they view it as a ‘toys for the boys’ scene – and there are, from time-to-time, touches of the alpha male syndrome evident?  Or, do they have better things to do with their time?

4.    Is it open? Blogs can collapse into self-regarding, incestuous cliques. While there are occasional descents into self-satisfaction; patronisation; and playing the man not the ball , in general, contributors and commentators stick to the facts and the issues, and there is enough variety amongst the latter to indicate that it’s not a closed shop.

5.    Is it informed? The Zen proverb comes to mind: ‘Those who know do not say, those who say do not know’. Inevitably, the key players who see all the angles and are in the decision-making process are not direct players in the blogosphere.   And there are few economists who can make bridges based on training and experience to any of the worlds of politics, farming, business, engineering, ecology and the arts.  But these limitations of the contributors do not apply to all of the commentators, some of whom bring some of these perspectives to bear.

6.    Does it entertain? Coming from the land of Swift, Shaw and Wilde, you might expect a little humour. You would be disappointed.

7.    Does it generate vigorous debate? ‘If you want an audience, start a fight’ is an old Irish expression with a lot of validity. Samuel Johnson makes the case more elegantly. “It is advantageous to an author that his book should be attacked as well as praised. Fame is a shuttlecock. If it be stuck only at one end of the room, it will soon fall to the ground. To keep it up, it must be struck at both ends.” There are not enough set pieces to create theatre. Richard Tol and I did our bit to have an argument (You can see the original piece and the ensuing comments at: http://www.comharsdc.ie/blog/?p=233#comments. The winner will be clear to the informed and impartial observer. But this is an exception.).

8.    Is it of high quality? It provides great links to relevant and timely literature and analyses, and it generates – in some instances – very informed debate. It’s the only place where official reports and policy statements get analysed, but the coverage is inevitably ad hoc and the treatment uneven.

Class assignment for Economics Students: Read carefully every contribution to Irish Economy by your professor or lecturer. Check the extent to which (1) their predictions have come true, and why they got it so wrong or right; (2) they have mobilised theory and evidence of quality in support of their case; (3) they have recognised incentives, tradeoffs, uncertainties, critical constraints and costs and benefits; (4) they have acknowledged mistakes and gaps in their knowledge. Provide a grade (A through F) and the reasons for same, and submit to Irish Economy, using an appropriate pseudonym.

Some Gaps

I haven’t done what I suggest the students do, so I don’t have and informed view, but I do have the impression that the following are inadequately considered:

•    The given nature of the EU policy context: EU policy is sometimes poor – solid waste and waste water being two examples – but we have to take it as given and address our choices accordingly.

•    In most cases we face trade-offs where there are significant issues and uncertainties around the choices and their implications – the Anglo Irish Bank fiasco seems to fit this description. Prescriptions that don’t recognise these tradeoffs and uncertainties are of limited value.

•    Technology and its evolution (or not) is key in shaping some choices. For example, if there is a serious breakthrough in improving the storage capacity of batteries at low cost, this will transform choices in regard to electric vehicles, and will also indirectly improve the viability of wind and other intermittent power. If this is not achieved, the prospects for these are seriously diminished.

•    The coverage seems at times eccentric, driven as it often is by the latest headline. A case can be made that regaining productivity is the central challenge for the Irish economy, and it gets little explicit attention. But it may ask too much to expect prioritisation or comprehensiveness or a focus on long term fundamentals. Blogs are about the now.

And we need to remember that most of those involved have busy lives, are not paid for blogging; and they are exposing themselves in perpetuity to ex post analysis not only by critical students (see above), but by various psychoanalysts and hurlers on the ditch. I’ve been told that, with the right skills, it will be possible from forensic interrogation of the blogs over time to tell who was toilet trained too early (and too late). Most of us can live fulfilled lives without this information.

Conclusion

It passes John Lloyd’s vacuousness test; there’s enough meat in the sandwich to make it worth eating. We’ll have a much better sense of quality when students undertake substantive ex-post analysis of the contributions and the comments. And post their findings on Irish Economy.

Appendix available on webiste version on www.comharsdc.ie.

The usual list includes: finance provided by angel investors (often relatives), and by venture capitalists; government support via funding for infrastructure, research and development and tax incentives; a profusion of new ideas that could increase productivity in existing businesses and create new markets (these often come from universities and their graduates); legal expertise that helps compliance with the law and protects the new ideas (intellectual property); and entrepreneurs who are willing to take on the risk and commit themselves body and soul to making it happen.

And the people behind these elements need to interact, and so this activity tends to cluster in particular locations.  Silicon Valley in California is the prototype where all these forces combine, and Palo Alto is its heartbeat; its credentials are impressive – Facebook and Hewlett Packard both have their origins and their base there.  Larry Ellison, Oracle Corporation; Gordon E. Moore, Intel and originator of Moore’s Law; John Thompson, Symantec; Steve Jobs, Apple; Thomas Siebel, Siebel Systems, and John Doerr, venture capitalist, all live in the neighbourhood.

At a presentation in Dublin hosted recently by the Earth Sciences Institute University College Dublin, Trinity College Dublin, and Dublin City Council, Pat Burt, the Mayor of Palo Alto, explained its success.  Graduates of the local university (Stanford) anchor many of the new ideas – Larry Page and Sergey Brin (Google); Jerry Yang and David Filo (Yahoo); Len Bosack and Sandy Lerner (Cisco Systems); Damon Horowitz (Aardvark); William Hewlett and David Packard (Hewlett Packard); Vinod Khosla, Andy Bechtolsheim, and Scott McNealy (Sun Microsystems) – are the tip of a very creative iceberg.

And what are by now serial entrepreneurs and venture capitalists constantly scan the ideas horizon to see what can be brought to commercial fruition. And they understand the law of large numbers – many relative failures must be absorbed if a few large successes are to be realised.

Burt noted that many of the new wave of start-ups are led by recent immigrants, with India, China and Europe well represented.  And many of the ideas are pitched, and deals done, when innovators, venture capitalists and IP (intellectual property) lawyers meet over breakfast (buttermilk pancakes are a favourite) in an unpretentious restaurant with many booths and tables called Bucks in nearby Woodside.

Palo Alto faces environmental challenges, including climate change – much will be submerged if sea levels rise significantly, as at the same time its fresh water supply shrinks as the snow pack in the Sierras retreats. The response is the Community Environmental Action Partnership, which brings key stakeholders and the public together to address water conservation and quality; climate protection; green building; zero waste; parks and open spaces, and energy.

And this, in turn, is leading some of the innovators to focus on clean tech as the next frontier.  John Doerr, the doyen of venture capitalists, sees energy as the new frontier: “The energy market is $6 trillion.  I like to say it’s the mother of all markets.  Compared to the internet, which is a big deal, this is much bigger, much more exciting.  But the challenge is much larger.  Going green – solving that problem will be the largest transformation on the planet.”

Dublin was Ireland’s equivalent of Silicon Valley in the 18th century, when the imagination of key members of the land-owning class was captured by the potential of emerging science.  In 1731, they formed the Dublin Society to, in R.F. Foster’s words, “promote agriculture, manufactures and the useful arts with a direction that was firmly pragmatic and directed towards practical economics rather than theoretical science; much of the 18th century achievement can be traced to its influence”.  They controlled the Parliament and the university (Trinity College) and so risk-taking, policy and intellectual development were in alignment

This impetus to foster innovation and invest in Ireland’s future was lost for centuries, but we are now re-inventing ourselves to make it once more a central tenet of Irish life.  Generous tax provisions apply for investors in enterprise, research and development and venture capital; local and city government are enabling and supportive; a venture capital partnership (modelled on a successful precedent in Israel) has been established; and, after a hiatus of over 200 years, there is serious investment by both the State and private sectors in research and development.  In the area of climate change and energy, a price has been put on carbon which provides a return to all carbon-reducing investment; this gives innovators and entrepreneurs in Ireland and Europe an advantage over their counterparts in the US.

The first fruits of this change are beginning to emerge, as multinationals (examples include Boston Scientific, IBM, Intel, HP, Johnson and Johnson, PayPal, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, SAP) begin to invest in R&D in Ireland, and a swarm of start-ups emerge.

I see a time when parents who have the means to do so help their children finance an innovation-led company, rather than a house, where the five-kilometre ‘innovation corridor’ linking UCD and TCD is home to a plethora of creative activity, and where a Bucks equivalent emerges to enable serious people to meet and do deals.