Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide levels are rising – that is a fact. Before the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 levels steadily remained at around 280ppm (parts per million). This number had remained constant for thousands of years, with very minor increases over the years due to natural processes. In March this year, CO2 concentrations were sitting at 418.81ppm. This huge increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations has already created and will continue to create unprecedented effects on the environment globally. This daunting fact has prompted leaders across the globe to act.
Last November in Glasgow, the COP26 summit was held which was widely regarded as an instance of the UK taking global leadership in the fight against climate change. The UK has worked hard to bring all participants of COP26 to a consensus about the actions needed to mitigate against the harmful effects of climate change and reduce global CO2 emissions as a means of lessening the damage caused by global warming in the future. In doing so, the UK government has sought to fulfil their end of the bargain and beyond, making bold promises in the hopes of accelerating the UK’s charge to becoming net carbon neutral by the year 2050.
Energy production is one of the biggest issues regarding our drive to net zero, producing 21% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. As such, the government has placed a levy on domestic energy bills, costing the average UK household an extra £159 per year on energy bills as a means of financing subsidies for renewable energy products. In addition to this, the government has recently raised the household electricity price cap from £693 to £1,971. This will put immense strain on the budgets of many households, not even mentioning the skyrocketing inflation recorded at 7% in March 2022. This financial squeeze is not showing any signs of relenting, with disposable incomes predicted to fall by 1.9% this year – an even bigger decline in living standards than the one seen in the year prior to the Winter of Discontent.
With all the economic doom and gloom spreading about, a question must be asked – is net zero by 2050 worth it? The UK sits on top of huge shale gas deposits which could easily be exploited by the government issuing licences for companies to begin fracking on these lands, solving the gas supply issues which drives lots of the inflation currently seen. This gas could also be used to generate electricity domestically, reducing the UK’s reliance on French electricity whilst increasing supply to the point where households’ electricity bills could be drastically reduced. The UK currently contributes to 1% of global emissions, meaning that despite being virtuous, the drive to net zero will have relatively little effect globally when countries like China and India make relatively little efforts to reduce their own carbon footprints. Moreover, exploiting domestic energy supplies will likely result in lower overall carbon emissions than the alternative of importing, as huge amounts of carbon dioxide is emitted when transporting these resources to the UK.
As such, it is little surprise that Reform UK – the largest right-wing opposition party to the Conservative party has begun to campaign against the government’s current plans to achieve net carbon neutrality. Whilst it is a noble cause to reduce carbon emissions, the current economic reality shows that the plans currently in place will massively reduce the quality of life for millions in this country instead of being the ‘Green Revolution’ that was promised by this government. We need pragmatic, not dogmatic solutions to current issues and reviving domestic energy production is the first step to solving the cost-of-living crisis and reducing our dependence on energy imports. We still have twenty-eight years to reach our target. Making sure that people are financially safe should be the government’s priority, only then can we focus on the environment. There is no doubt that this method of mitigating the cost-of-living crisis will encounter large resistance from pressure groups such as the Extinction Rebellion, but a far larger resistance will be seen in the polls if the government does not get a handle on the situation soon.
-
Reform will lead us to victory
Reform UK, lead by Nigel Farage, is a once in a century opportunity to destabilise the status quo and displace the political establishment in Great Britain. A unique window of time has opened up in which the British people are discontent enough to reject both the Labour party and the Conservative party, throwing their votes behind what currently amounts to a populist vessel without any record of governance.
A recent poll by Ipsos shows Reform UK with 34 percent, 9 points ahead of Labour, continuing its rapid transformation from an irrelevant third party enclave for disgruntled Tories into a serious electoral force; one threatening to be responsible for the first election since 1910 in which a party other than Labour or the Conservatives won the most seats. Whatever your assessment of Nigel Farage’s character, or Zia Yusuf’s intentions, or how sound Reform UK’s policy proposals are, or even just the party’s tactics and rhetoric – I think it’s important to remember both the existential threat this country faces and how important it is for us to gain political power. That is ultimately all that matters – power. If we aren’t working towards winning councillors (thankfully, Reform is), and if we aren’t working towards winning seats in the House of Commons (thankfully, Reform is), then we are wasting our time.
Many people on the right of politics seem to be stricken with reservations when it comes to supporting Reform UK. A caveat with that is when I say “many people on the right of politics” I specifically mean the most politically engaged, most active online group of people on the right. The general logic concludes that Reform is:
- Appealing too much to old people.
- Is ideologically incoherent.
- Has become soft on its core issues (immigration, identity, etc.).
On point one, they have astutely assessed that the Labour party is weakest from its left flank. As such, coming out against the cuts to the Winter Fuel Allowance and in favour of scrapping the Two-Child Benefit Cap is a good way of exploiting fragmentation within Labour’s electoral coalition. On point two, Reform has realised that the primary barrier to their electoral success is the degree to which people see Reform as being associated with the Conservative party (by history, by figures within the party, but most importantly by policy and rhetoric). This means that for the next 4 years they will be selling themselves as a fresh, new third party with ideas detached from the old constraints of red-blue, left-right partisan lines.
Regardless of your assessment of how committed they would be on delivering this; they are fundamentally a populist party. If you want Reform to sound like Margaret Thatcher on taxes, welfare and state intervention in the economy you will never be satisfied with them. Finally, on point three, by the nature of us living in a democracy, Reform inevitably has to win votes from the broad, apolitical masses in order to gain a majority in parliament. If that means Reform politicians have to sound like soft, liberal centrists in order to win votes from women aged 30-50 then sobeit.
A predictable wedge emerges from the fact that Nigel Farage needs to appeal to the country but Robert Jenrick needs to appeal to his base – in order for either of them to achieve their current goals. Plenty of figures in politics, predominantly Conservative MPs , currently have the luxury to be able to throw around as much rhetorical red meat as possible because the stakes are so low and they are nowhere near power. Farage, and Reform UK, have no such luxury. They have the weight of a desperate, panicked people on their shoulders and a country that is putting unearned hope into their project.
By Reform’s luck, the Conservative party is playing perfectly into their hands. A Midnightian miracle is unfolding, whereby Nigel Farage and Reform UK are becoming the sensible right wing party with broad appeal across the country and the Conservatives are becoming the fringe, impotent party obsessed with a handful of issues and unable to step outside of pandering to a noisy, narrow clique online.
The two parties are switching places, and yet Reform continues to position itself to the left of the Labour party. In a strange twist of fate, irrespective of the genealogy of the viewpoints of Reform’s officials or its membership, it will actually end up being the Labour party that replaces the Conservative party. What room is there remaining for the Conservative party if Labour are the fiscally responsible, steady-handed, sensible experienced party pleading with the electorate to continue on with the status quo and Reform are the party promoting a radical, progressive populism in opposition to that? Pictured below is the current state of British politics, the lines of attack each major party is making and their direction of travel. On present trends, by 2029 Reform will be the “left wing” option and Labour will be the “right wing” option in our two-party system. Do these terms really mean anything anymore?
I have my own reservations with Reform – I would like a much more radical economic policy from them. I would like to see a party that really lent into nationalist, or even just Corbynite, arguments on banks, big businesses, free trade and the overfinancialisation of the economy. I would like to hear “nationalisation” and “reindustrialisation” a lot more. I would like to hear that Nigel wants to continue fighting “multinationals and the big merchant banks.” I would like Reform to promote an isolationist foreign policy position in defence of Britain’s national interest, rather than being content with the £12.8 billion spent on the Ukraine War and our continued involvement in that proxy war on behalf of American imperialists. Given the state of our public services, infrastructure and just about every facet of British society – I don’t think Reform should be tacitly in favour of 5 percent of GDP, an extra £80 billion, being put into military spending. Nor do I think we should be getting further involved in Middle-Eastern conflicts, something which we haven’t gained from since the Sykes-Picot Agreement. But that’s just me!
Reform UK does not get enough credit for being as broad a tent as it is. It’s open for internal dissent on a whole number of issues. It more closely resembles a National Government in waiting than it does a singular political party. With the help of brilliant figures like Zia Yusuf in prominence, Reform UK is primed for a kind of internal mass line policy pragmatism. I continue to support them irrespective of disagreements because that is the nature of the operation of a political party – you subordinate yourself as an individual to the collective will in order to achieve results. Perhaps right wing people today struggle with this premise because they have never understood the necessity of trade unions, or perhaps because they are too committed to their personal “freedom of speech”.
Primarily, my support for Reform UK is derived from my personal loyalty to, and trust in, Nigel Farage. Secondarily, it is derived from two assumptions on what would occur should Reform win a majority and Nigel Farage be made Prime Minister.
The first assumption is that in such a scenario, half of the seats in the House of Commons predominantly will have been granted to fresh faces and strangers to Westminster. That in and of itself would be an astonishing political event the likes of which this country has never seen before. I’m not really sure the current political and journalist elite can weather a moment that destabilising. All grip on the Overton window and news cycle would be lost and a whole new batch of political advisors, think tanks and journalists would gain patronage overnight. The old regime and its comfortable net of nepotism that is currently maintaining everyone’s position either disintegrates or is seriously diminished in that scenario –before any legislation has been passed.
The second assumption is that, rather than calling for another referendum on electoral reform, they would instead in 2029 run on Proportional Representation and implement it once in power. This would break up our ossified two-party system and put us more in line with the fluid, active democracies of continental Europe. It would mean concern over pressing issues such as demographic change due to mass immigration could never be sidelined again, with all views in the country granted the political representation they deserve.
For those reasons and more, I back Reform UK. It is a calculation, but it’s not as cynical as it used to be. Put simply, my gut tells me to be optimistic about the future of the country and to put my support behind the only party capable of damaging the two parties that have so thoroughly wrecked our beautiful country. We can still save it, we can still restore it, we can still give it a new era to be proud of – but Britain will never have that opportunity unless you put your support and trust in those best placed to gain power.
-
From Atheism
Looking at the demographics of the Mallard, I assume most are familiar if not directly, then indirectly, with New Atheism. It was particularly popular between the 2000s and the 2010s, likely because the last vestiges of cultural Christianity were being stamped out, but the embers of cultural leftism were yet to catch. Early YouTube was dominated by atheists, who took to the new media platform to deliver the message of atheism to a new generation of young adults – myself included.
In fairness, I can’t blame YouTube for my lack of faith. My Church of England school hardly did anything to justify the faith to me, and without parental guidance, it was inevitable that I’d be filled with misgivings and misunderstandings of what faith was. Later in life, I’d take up a degree in Physics and later rest my atheism on the claim that the existence of God doesn’t adhere to the tenets of science. This is true, and something I believe even now. In science, if something cannot be validated or invalidated, then you dismiss it. This tenet is so engrained in scientists that when Pauli proposed the existence of a massless, chargeless particle, he bet a crate of champagne that no-one would find it due to the ludicrousness of being able to test the existence of a particle with no mass and no charge.
Of course, they did find it – and Pauli made good on his promise, gifting a crate of champagne to the scientists who discovered the neutrino. If you want to dismiss the existence of literal physical objects, this tenet will do just fine. The problem with it, is that it applies equally to anything not located in space and time. Morality, for example, is not a physical thing and its existence cannot be tested. We can do an experiment showing that murder rates generally correlate with unhappiness, but who says unhappiness is synonymous with badness? And so, on the same basis I dismissed the existence of God, I dismissed the existence of morality. At the time I did not know it, but this problem had been expressed in Hume’s Guillotine. A should statement can never rest on an is statement. It is raining, so I should wear a coat presupposes I shouldn’t want to get wet, which only pushes the problem back one step. Of course, if you insert an intelligent creator into the picture, you can say the way the world is, is a reflection of that creators plan for us, which we should follow – and so you can begin to talk about some kind of natural order to the world beyond science.
In time, I would find the failure of scientism to present a morality to be troublesome. After all, even if I were correct, and that morality didn’t exist – it was wholly arbitrary to hold that belief, after all, believing the truth over lies could not be the right thing to do by the very nature of my claims. The answers I saw from atheists regarding this, particularly Richard Dawkins, were not so impressive. Dawkins has argued that morality is an evolutionary instinct, which only begs the question as to why to follow that instinct over any other instinct. All instincts do is attempt to keep us alive, after all. Instincts also tell us to be distrustful of people ethnically dissimilar from one another, and Dawkins refutes that behaviour in the strongest terms, often accusing Brexiteers of behaving in that way. If we are to follow the evolutionary moral instinct because it is the ‘right thing to do’, and what is right is determined by that same instinct – all Dawkins is saying is that the evolutionary moral instinct says to follow itself, but of course an instinct says to follow it: that’s what instincts do. At this point, it became quite clear that attempts to either dismiss morality on the basis of science, or to construct one out of scientific principles inevitably tended towards circular logic.
Materialism, the belief that everything is one substance, that of matter, is very elegant on its surface: Everything is matter, the interactions of that matter are described by science, and anything we perceive to be outside of that is just a social construct, a spook, or a delusion. One major flaw in materialism is the existence of qualia, of the sensation of experiencing things. For example, the sensation of happiness is not the same as the chemicals that produce that sensation. It may be described as such, and you may even be able to predict with perfect certainty that someone will feel a sensation and how intense you expect the sensation to be. However there is a thisness to the sensation that cannot just be reduced to the biochemical processes that go into it. As a consequence, materialism has to simply deny that these sensations are real, and insist that things like joy, sadness, and conscious experience itself are just tricks of the mind (composed of atoms and microelectrodes and nothing more). This ultimately refutes materialism itself, however. If our conscious experiences are not meaningful or true, then the scientific laws we derive from those experiences are not meaningful either.
If you want to insist the universe is one substance, it makes much more sense to argue the universe is not all matter, but all consciousness – as consciousness is all anyone has ever been given, even those who came up with and tested scientific laws did so through verification of sensations they experienced in their consciousness, which cannot be reduced to the physical processes that went into bringing consciousness about. Even if we could have a perfect understanding of the human brain, and could replicate what I imagine on a screen – all we would have succeeded in doing is making a map of consciousness, not replicating consciousness itself. This would be the same as arguing that because we can make a map of New York City, that the map is identical to New York City. The map may describe New York, it may even predict things around New York – but the map is not New York. Equivalently, science may describe and predict consciousness or reality, but science is not consciousness or reality.
There is a comfort in appealing to scientific laws, they are predictable (that’s what makes them scientific,) but this predictability relies on the laws themselves being continuous. If gravitational attraction changed overnight, then the equations that described them would also have to change. The assumption that these laws are constant and reliable, and therefore the basis of yet more science is something that cannot itself be tested. If you want to insist that you only believe in the existence of things that can be falsified, then you cannot believe the laws of physics are continuous and constant – as this cannot be falsified. Again, Hume recognised this – and labelled it ‘naïve empiricism’. The naïvety comes in when we insist the laws of Physics are constant because they’ve always been constant in our experience. By the same token we can’t say the Universe existed before we were born because we have never experienced it, which creates a solipsism harder to justify than any spooky non-materialistic belief. Even if we appeal to the material truths which demonstrate existence beyond our lifetime, for example, carbon-13 dating – we can never justify whether or not the laws of physics will spontaneously change the day after our deaths, we simply assume that they won’t. This is not to say such the belief that the laws of Physics are constant is unreasonable, only that it is unreasonable within a world-view conforming to empiricism, and not something proven empirically.
So what kind of world-view does answer these questions? Well, I gave one answer earlier: one in which consciousness is primary, also known as Idealism. Another would be faith, which recognises the objective value of things not located in space and time. For example, morality. Morality is of course, not the only thing located in space and time that we treat as objective, I’ve just talked about it a lot in this article so I felt compelled to mention it first. Another would be numbers. You can have seven marbles, seven pounds, and the number seven on a piece of paper – but destroy the marbles, spend the money, and erase the number on the paper and yet the number seven still exists. We can’t simply escape the reality of numbers by arguing they are an invention of the mind, physical laws, such as attraction due to gravity require them. The gravitational constant, G, is a number you are required to multiply by (and cannot simply be dropped) to describe gravitational attraction. We can shunt the value of the number about by changing our units, but the number itself remains – and would make human life impossible if it were off by just 1 in 1060. Which is the same as getting statistically impossible odds ten trillion times. Not only are numbers not reducible to material reality, but they are also required to be highly specific for life to develop whatsoever.
A materialist might want to escape this by claiming that there are trillions of universes where these constants vary, and therefore our existence is statistically inevitable. But at this point you are no longer doing science. A multiverse is necessarily not empirically verifiable, and the existence of a multiverse is just as unfounded (on materialist terms) as a belief in God. Furthermore, this only shunts the problem back one step – why is it that multiverses are created in this one specific way, with the values of the constants varying? Why can’t there by multiverses where not just the constants in the equations, but the equations themselves vary? Who is to say there has to be these forces and their respective equations at all? Is there a multiverse of multiverses and a multiverse of multiverses of multiverses? Isn’t this all just circular and ridiculous at this point?
It was in light of all of these things: the absence of transcendence, the inability to consistently derive physics and metaphysics, and the failure to construct a morality, that drew me away from atheism and into my current beliefs. There are things beyond this world that we not only need to appeal to pragmatically, but need in order to make sense of the world as it exists. They are transcendent. They are not just a reflection of a higher world, but necessary components of this world as well. From morality, to numbers, to the very sensation of being anything at all, every part of life is beyond the mere matter we interact with every day. In that kind of understanding, the world ceases to be sterile, and instead takes on the character of an enchanted garden – where life, death, and the interplay of tragedy and comedy make up just a part of an order much larger than our mere existence.
Picture Credit
-
Why Taiwan Will Probably Survive Against a Chinese Invasion
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine earlier this year, many have turned their attention towards Taiwan and China. It has been no secret that since 1949, China have sought to reunify the island with the mainland and that Taiwan has sought to resist. However, I argue that for Taiwan this decade will be vitally important and that if it can survive the next ten years then it will probably outlast mainland China.
Regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I argue that demographics play a greater role than what has been initially stated. When you have a largely aging society like Russia has, the nation’s political elites know and understand that there is a limited timeframe in which they can act. The reason for this is because, they understand the current size of potential army recruits remains at the largest it is going to be for the foreseeable future.
As too it has been argued that Russia sought to invade Ukraine now because of this reduction in young people and the need to secure the nation’s geographic security gaps that are presently open. Consequently, I argue that China is no different with these problems and the need to secure its own political goals regarding Taiwan.
Subsequently, since 1949 China has been defiant about its position on Taiwan and its strategic messaging to the rest of the world about it. Alongside this, China will have needed to take Taiwan by the latest 2027.
This is because of similar demographic reasons that an aging China has started to face, mirroring the structural conditions that plague Russia’s desire to act while it still can.
If we take the fact that China is the fastest aging society in history, and that it needs to achieve all its goals by the year 2049, we are left with two very interesting intersecting factors at play.
If we work backwards from the year 2049, the targeted symbolic year of a hegemonic Chinese nation we can start to be presented with a better image and a potential reunification timeline that could unfold. That gives us a twenty-seven-year gap from present, in which they will need to achieve this.
Typically, it takes twenty years for a generation to occur, as noted by Strauss and Howe. This period will be important because it will be the benchmark for which unification normalisation will start to begin. What this will allow is the full political annexation of Taiwan over to mainland China. This is because a full generation of normalisation needs to happen, to make sure all political issues can be worked out and solved when being cored happens.
We can observe similar processes occurring in both Hong Kong and Macau, but as shown China does not have fifty years to fully transfer sovereignty to the mainland. Therefore, a mere generation will be the minimum for which China can hope to achieve this change.
We do not have much historically to compare too when regarding modern Island nation invasions but if nations like Ukraine and Afghanistan are to be models for Post-Cold War invasions and occupations, then it is deeply unlikely that an invasion’s success would be achieved in the space of a month.
However, working on the core assumption that China can peacefully walk straight into the island and the straight the process of sovereignty transfer right away. This would leave us with the year 2029 to start this process immediately in theory.
Secondly, if a drawn-out conflict would occur to fully control the island, this would take arguably two-five years depending on the resistance put up by Taiwanese soldiers and citizens alike. If we take a conservative estimate and say it will take two years of conflict to fully pacify the nation (something unprecedented in modern history). This would leave us with the year 2027, just five years from now, for which invasion can occur to reach China’s own deadline of 2049.
I argue that Taiwan will have plenty of time to both prepare and acknowledge a basic timeline of how China will seek to act. This becomes especially relevant due to the geographic conditions of the island and its 180km distance between itself and the mainland. It will be almost impossible to sneak up on the nation or launch a full amphibious assault. In addition, any Chinese military build-up will be noticed and will give the Taiwan several months to directly prepare for an invasion.
This is not withstanding neighbouring nations, that will be brought into interfering in any potential conflict, especially with the QUAD nations being heavily reliant on Taiwanese business.
Yet, we have ignored one core thing that still matters and that is China’s demographic position. The nation similarly to Russia is approaching a massive demographic bust moment, in part due to its over thirty years of negative fertility rates. Subsequently, the chances of China invading Taiwan remain unlikely at 20%, in the long term when regarding the next five years. As such, this has been best documented by both Hoie and Darley, both have demonstrated the difficulty on China’s part towards achieving this aim.
However, if they do China will not be able to hold the nation, just like how both the Soviet Union and the West could not hold Afghanistan. The outcome of this will be catastrophic for the Chinese nation state, on not just a political level but on a civilisational one too.
Taiwan will continue and will eventually survive, against Chinese aggressions. This is in part because of the decreasing likelihood of China of securing its desired timeframe due its fast-approaching demographic bomb.
