Small talk

With a replacement of Mr. Hu Jintao getting nearer, ironic and futile hopes are put in day-dreams of more democratic road-signs presenting themselves in due course. That, however, is not at all what the party leaders have in mind. The establishment in Beijing continues to put hard efforts in polishing the country’s image by idolizing stability and national pride.

Of course this is not what many Chinese people, and the rest of the world, were hoping for. The global economy has much to thank China for in 2009. Without the huge ‘stability packs’ to bend the economy, the world would probably have got a much tougher blow. (China’s economy didn’t even decline; the growing-pace just shrunk.) But everyone was hoping for more democratic rights, for China to re-shape its political structure, if even a little, like it had done with its economy over the past decade.

Some put their hopes in the words of Hu Jintao’s, China’s leader still, who claimed before that ‘the party needs to be democratized’. Sadly the way in which the concept democracy is defined by him and his backing, is totally different from what we are used to. Mr. Hu’s philosophy speaks of ‘personal freedoms’ and little public (read: political) ones. How much actually remains of the first, if the latter is not there?

And this is important. With the west’s downfall, the Asian tigers struck and usurped much of the vacuum. Now the west is recovering too; though most expect that not all countries will be assigned their former share of power. Together with economies, images have been hit hard as well. Many, understandably but wrongly, feel that America ‘got what it deserved’, and that China is now a good alternative. A nation so tightly controlled is not a good alternative.  Certainly huge government spending, infrastructural projects and industries will fire up any economy, but it will not make it keep going indefinitely. The same political structure that made these projects will also cause its downfall it no measures are taken.

Eyeing the statistics, you would be inclined to conclude that the communist party still holds great sway over the people. And in a sense it does; only not because of its ideals, popularity or political support. There a more simple explanation: People that want to work, earn money and gain as much control over their own futures as possible need the contacts the party provides. The party has become a strategic institution as much as a political one.

Since it is such a powerful institution, it is hard to hold a public opinion that differs from that of the institutionalized establishment, as we saw again last week. Liu Xjaobo has been sentenced to eleven years in prison. Two of these years will be without any political rights, destroying any opportunity of displaying his opinion publicly (and getting away with it).

The 53 year-old Xjaobo is one of the best known critics of the way in which China deals with human-rights. He has been jailed before, among other things because he co-authored the Charta 08-petition, which aimed at changing China’s one-party system and has gathered about 10.000 signatures so far. Pick a search engine, and find more on this man. I had no particular idea of this small text in mind, except for the wish to express my utterly useless, though nevertheless sincere, sympathy with this man, and likewise with the many unknown men and women who crossed the path of Beijing’s leaders.

Thanks to the many marvelous Christmas editions of newspapers and magazines, you sort of get the feeling the world stops for a few days. Only cleaning the dishes, after lovely extravagant feasts, reminds of the build-up wherein people were nervously and frantically working on preparations.

Things are almost back to normal. Last obstacle is a smooth transition of time from our old year, into the new one. Luckily, this process will take care of itself. Unlike politics; here politicians keep forcing the people to keep a close eye on practices. After months of watching the process of a new health-care bill for Americans, I missed out on the Senate’s highly anticipated vote.

The Economist dubbed it ‘Obama’s Christmas present’. I don’t know what kind of presents the author normally finds under his or her tree, but I hardly believe it is malfunctioning, unfinished and highly debated. Of course that was not what the author was aiming for. It is a great collective achievement to get health-care this far, something unseen since the 60’s. We’re not quite there yet though.

Not that proposals by the Senate and the House of Representatives are that far apart. They should, in theory, make Congress well able to reconcile them, so that one combined proposal may be sent to the White House for a presidential signature. I do not have the intention to repeat the arguments I have made before here. If ever a bill passes, then I will, especially if it does not solve those things that I and many others think need solving.

At this moment we’ll ignore our rearview mirror, and wait a little longer.  Since no combination of Senate and House has so far been drafted things could still go horribly wrong, though admittedly I think this is unlikely. Margins of error are very small, but as long as the House recognizes this by leaning towards the proposal of their legislature-counterpart, something positive should come out.

Ironically, it is very doubtful whether this will go down well with Americans. Obama’s reputation has declined, something not altogether justified, but so has the reputation of health-care reform. People are sometimes said to be unsatisfied. Whether they are unsatisfied enough to see this reform as a potential boost for Obama’s popularity we can’t tell yet.

Xie Zhenhua, head of China’s delegation for the Climate change summit that has now ended, used remarkable positive words, saying that ‘everybody should be happy’. But everybody is not happy.  Two weeks have been wasted by endless bickering on subjects that could and should have been scrutinized weeks, nay months, before the summit itself started.

China knew all along that check-ups on their emissions are not considered objective without foreign import, and all knew a legally binding maximum of emission was exactly what we needed. The Copenhagen summit, so it seems, has passed with the sole result of fulfilling the purpose of keeping our ambitions alive.

Even a spokeswoman of the European Commission could no longer turn a blind eye to the vast difference between what was achieved in the Copenhagen accord, and what was hoped for:

“A deal is better than no deal. What could be agreed today, falls far below our expectations. But It keeps our goals and ambitions alive. It addresses the needs of developing countries. It was the only deal available in Copenhagen.”

The worst thing is that the summit started with several goals in mind. One was that global temperature must not rise with more than two degrees Celsius. This brought along a difficult matter, since no side knows how much greenhouse gas emissions will have to be cut to meet this demand.  The other goal, resulting from that wish and widely considered to be the overarching principle, was finding a replacement for the Kyoto protocol. This meant that any treaty without legal-binding power would by many inevitably be seen as a let-down.

Tragically, this is what happened. Copenhagen’s accord has no binding force. It’d almost make you think that the future of your planet depends on sheer good will from national governments. That no such binding force has been implemented has far-reaching consequences therefore, since no one can be held accountable for their actions. Any attempt to reduce carbon emissions will for the most part depend on cap and trade systems, meaning actual cuts rather than compensatory measurements. Cash is a vital aspect in this system, to make pollution economically less viable.

As was suspected, developed countries will have to subsidize developing ones. In the 2010 to 2012 period this will amount to 30 billion dollars, and it is planned to rise to 100 billion dollars, by a collective commitment of rich countries, by 2020. As I noted yesterday, rich countries will be subjected to an 80% emission cut by 2050. Figures relevant for functioning as shorter-term goals are yet to be decided upon. Also, a 2016 date has been picked as one for reconsideration, if ever the need arises to set the limit of global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

None of this is likely to struck you as part of an amazing job, and rightly so. The burden has again been shifted forwards a couple of years, as also shown by guidelines for reporting on emissions and progress. National mitigation schemes that run thanks to subsidizing will have to be justified in light of international standards,  measurements, reports and verifications (or the, in this case more gloomier, falsification). Developed countries face similar rules of monitoring and reporting: Every second year by guidelines later to be adopted by the parties to the UN framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). But, once again: Later. Why not now?

Now of course the Copenhagen accord is neither fully implemented, finished nor the replacement of Kyoto, yet. Instead, it is a bill waiting for many add-ons so that it might do some good in the end. This might also be due to the fact that the last day, or even hours, turned out to be much more a struggle between this world’s leading forces, than one of a consensus reaching world meeting. The rest of the world was watching eagerly while the U.S.A., China, Brazil, South-Africa and India came up with something. It is good that, in order to prevent flying home completely empty handed, big nations take initiative and responsibility. It is bad that they apparently don’t know what these concepts mean.

They have agreed, among each other, that cuts will have to be made. That is a sound step, but again not one they made legally binding, which is certainly necessary. In the meantime international pressure might prove hard to ignore, which is, rather optimistically, like saying we have to put our hopes in cooperation for as long as legal muscles remain absent. On the other hand, it is better to have this, than to have nothing at all. Remember that up until now China and India were not bound by any agreement, and the USA did not ratify the Kyoto protocol. This route has enabled at least a morally binding principle and a framework for more result in the future.

That framework is what will be looked at now. Next year a new meeting will be held, which is so close to the 2012 that it looks even more foolish that we have deprived ourselves of a decent bill on climate change. If governments continue to put efforts into this project, by drafting proposals and lobbying before the actual deadline forces politicians to think minutes have become important, then maybe next year things will look sunnier. Sergio Serra, Brazil’s climate change ambassador, sums it up nicely:

It’s very disappointing, I would say, but it is not a failure… if we agree to meet again and deal with the issues that are still pending. We have a big job ahead to avoid climate change through effective emissions reduction targets and this was not done here.

The past few weeks then, have lead to a conclusion that many expected from the outset. Much talk, many promises, high hopes, low expectations, and a small sigh of relief that at least something was agreed upon. Those willing to make sacrifices just didn’t hold enough strategic power to create more than an intermediate step. The only hint of how important this summit was is that the head of many states sat together in one room.

The Copenhagen summit is almost over. President Obama stated just what we’ve all known for years, that talking does not solve our problems and that concessions are needed to get things going.

Too bad talking is all we’ve seen thus far. At first the major obstacle seemed to have been who will cover costs for the damage of history. Some letters and proposals have leaked one way or another, resulting in well feigned outrage of developing nations (figures talk about 10 billion dollars that will be made available for developing nations as a subsidy for green technology and past-damage). This no longer seems the case, however. Latest figures that were registered by my ears spoke of 10 billion Euros of short term investment, as the first share of a total investment of 100 billion Euros. I cannot tell how much of this will end up in poorer countries, but I’ll put that matter to rest until we hear more, since it seems unlikely that any big, developing country will settle for a deal that goes against the currents of their principles.

At this moment there remain two problems that have proved hard to take. How much will global CO2 emissions have to be reduced in order to achieve the goal that the earth’s temperature will not rise by more than two degrees Celsius? China is the other problem: They have so far refused bipartisan check-ups. They will definitely come up with data, figures and conclusions of their own, but when we think of Yuan-value, human-rights and many other issues, it becomes doubtful to which extent we can trust these outcomes.

China’s refusal is unsurprising. They have since long been reluctant to allow any country to meddle in their businesses, or indeed to let anyone publicize material that has not been state-approved (or state-made). It is essential, if anything positive will have to come out of the Copenhagen summit, that this attitude is dropped: America will not accept any deal that is ambitious enough to be able to work, that does not include the option to check amounts of CO2 emissions in all participating countries.

The U.S.A. didn’t leave us in doubt when it comes to that. Obama also reminded us that ‘our ability to take collective action is in doubt right now´. After switching on my television, I was again confronted with this, though the major emphasis was laid on something else, namely that ‘there are so many participants, hence so many interests’. What this fails to grasp is that we have only one interest. Nationalities might differ, climate change as a process does not. This has been underlined by the rapidity of global recognition: Climate change is not an issue that has presented itself decades after decades, rather, after many denials and sceptics, politicians have almost universally accepted that it occurs and needs solving.

In the coming hours they will probably be working on a deal along the following lines. By 2050, global CO2 emissions will have to be reduced by 50%. Rich countries will have to put even more effort into the project, with targets as high as 80%.  In a combination with extra flows of money to developing nations this seems a pretty fair way to spread this threat and burden. Lately, thanks to the heat that radiates from this topic,  many sceptics have again cried out loud that this is ´blind science´, and a waste of money. But if we do it right, this whole threat will not need to cost more than one, or a less positive two, percent of global economic output. That is a whole lot less than what we invested to avert the crisis.

Economies relations and political power seem to go hand in hand. Behind the scenes America and China are trying to reach common grounds. Without either of these I can’t see anything good coming out of Copenhagen at all.  They need each other, and neither wants to lose face, which is somewhat positive as both countries seem to realize they will be blamed if no treaty is drawn and accepted.

Political minds will need to be cunning and decisive in the ‘next five minutes to midnight’. China will need to make concessions by stop being over-suspicious and allowing foreign officials into their borders to register emission trends. My hopes are still high, my expectations are still low.

Things are not running smooth for Dutch labor party PvdA. Their current leader Wouter Bos did reasonably well when the financial crisis hit the Netherlands, resulting in a temporary rise in popularity. Now, with the benefit of hindsight, questions arise whether he didn’t provide banks with too much money. You can see where this is going: Popularity disappeared as quickly as it had risen. The party currently holds 33 seats in parliament (from a total of 150); polls suggest they will get about 15 if elections are held at this moment. Historically, the party has been a major influence on the political scene since it was founded back in 1946. But, as Bos seems unable to turn the tie, some provocative proposals are already echoing. What will the future have in store for Dutch, ‘labor’ and ‘socially’-minded politicians?

More generally, by trying to get into view why such an established political party is now failing according to the polls,  this can be used to create a stepping-stone to discuss some issues that have resulted in large parts of the population shifting to more liberal, radical and right-wing parties, accounted for by a hardening of public opinion.

This subject is not a random-pick of course: I am not the one who came up with rumors concerning the party’s future. These actually came from within its own walls. Plasterk and Klijnsma, two MP’s, were two of the first to openly air criticism on its ‘elitist character’ and ‘deplorable state’,  inferred from the historically-low size of the electorate and its inability to connect to Dutch citizens. Under-secretary of state Klijnsma added some more fuel to speculations just before municipal elections by stating that a merger between several parties could (or even should) be considered. This happened before in the sixties, as she claims, when ‘New Left’ (literally translated) was formed, shaking things up quite rigorously.

Neither is it something new to PvdA’s history, since it is itself a result from three pre-Second World War parties (for more on this, just consult Wikipedia). Whether repeating this feat at this moment is a wise step remains in the open. Their shift in recent years has gone from a dogmatic position on the left, to a more open, though no less socially minded, spot. Worst thing about their current state is that they seem to have lost their intimate connection with economically lower ‘classes’, where the lion-share of their voters resided. These have mostly shifted to parties on the right or far right, meaning the VVD (Liberals) or Wilders’ PVV (Party for Freedom). D66 also fares well on recent events, as voters seem to regard them as a natural, more pragmatic and reasonable alternative to Wilders’ extreme Islamic-phobias. We could cite several more reasons for their decline. A sense of unease when it comes to taxes, some residue of injustice as a result of the crisis, a general feeling that the government ‘does not listen’ and problems with crime and integration. We’ll have a quick look at each of these.

When it comes to taxes, Holland is very different from America. Our system tries to bring the payrolls closer together by re-distributing wealth via progressive taxes. This means that, depending on the height of your income, you will pass through different tax-slices. The first will take 32,35% of your income, the second 37,6%, the third 42% and the last 52% (this is not entirely accurate anymore, since changes were made earlier this year. But for our purposes it illustrates the way in which the system works better. At this moment the 2^nd slice is different because it has been made 42% as well. This, however, does not equal saying ‘dispose of the second slice altogether’, because there are tax-advantages that depend upon your income.) These percentages are bound to a fixed height of income, so that each person will pay as much tax on, for instance, their first €25.000. Now you can see that the last slice, amounting to as much as 52% of your earnings, is rather high.  When the PvdA proposed a new tax-slice of 60%, to add to the existing four, there were calls you could summarize as “outrage”. Not because of a lack of solidarity, but because a general sense that this goes too far, that people need to learn to be able to take care of themselves, and that being lazy rather than working is stimulated by these measures. Though I support a system built upon principles of solidarity with those who are unable to work for whichever reason, I agree that clear boundaries need to be set. With markets getting more open by the year, it is important to stimulate innovative businesses, people and processes. These often bring along a lot of money and extravagant payrolls: So be it. Taken on the whole, having them pay lower taxes is always better than not having them at all.

The second problem has close ties with this. Banks were bailed-out by huge sums of money. Why? Because years of risk-taking, mismanagement and a transparency close to zero made the industry fatally ill. This meant another reward for those that took risks too earn quick money, instead of saving money to secure a less wealthy, though more secure future. Put big management bonuses on top of that and case closed: A deep feeling of injustice settled itself nice and warm in the lap of right-wing parties, favoring liberal tendencies and a strong demand for individual responsibility.

Saying that the ‘government does not listen’ points to something equally problematic. It sounds just  like what you would expect someone to say who is in opposition or has fallen in disbelief. It is a bitter remark, exaggerated too, but it can be explained as it has at least some partial truth to it.  The best example I can come up with is Europe and it’s Lisbon-treaty. Being pro-European it got my support, which it lacked from many others.  The Netherlands, together with France, were the two countries that rejected the European Constitution. Ever since governments have been working on a counter-strike; one that wouldn’t be subjected to a referendum, making ratification much more likely. In other words: People reject a European tendency, resulting in the altering of policies which are then accepted by carefully avoiding public advice. That is undemocratic to say the least. Also, the European Commission and Parliament now have enough power to impose a lot of new laws, without running much risk of facing obstacles (national parliaments have only 8 weeks to object to an accepted law). Europe might only be one example, nevertheless it is a very good one, as it stresses just how much politics can be a world of its own even on a large scale.

Politics is a world where money is as vital as anywhere, and where dubious agreements on legal issues have a thorough impact on the way in which the public’s perceptions are shaped. To give you an idea of what causes frustration in Dutch minds: The way in which the police acts towards violations of rules in traffic is reminiscent of the KGB, with sanctions where sky is the limit; marriage-integration still going strong; freedom of religion thwarting the more precious freedom of speech; criminals released on probation that get away with more wrongdoings; bureaucracy and the omnipresence of the state,  creating financial burdens on citizens while on the other hand privacy is diminished by all sorts of registrations (varying from tapping phones to license-plate registration system on highways).  See this in light of an old proposal that will now finally be put into practise: Road pricing. It is fashionable to make people pay not only for owning their car, but when they use it too. Though the latter is not a bad thing, in Holland they now want people to pay for each kilometre. This needs satellites for whereabouts and computers for registration. Whether or not cars can be tracked does not interest me. What interests me is that it is another needless complex step that makes sitting in your own car feel like you are paying for a taxi. If they want people to pay for driving it is much easier to go for fuel-taxes. Not that these don’t exist, they got out of control years ago. However, they do not pose difficulties when it comes to bureaucracy, fraud and development. When all the money earned by the government via these taxes had been invested in that very same infrastructure, our problems wouldn’t have been nearly as worse. More and more the impression is being upheld that citizens are there to support the government, not the other way around.

Now not all of these problems are due to PvdA failures. Even so, they are an influential side of the government. It could be argued that CDA, the Christian democrats, would have taken a harder line on many issues, were they not slowed down by leftish people and their fellow Christians from the CU. All in all the conclusion presents itself without much effort: The time is up for socialist diversity. This might be temporary, as politics and policies go up and down with every new issue that arises. It could also be a larger, more stable trend. Parties that stress individual responsibility and economic liberties are doing much better at this moment. And though it is good to think taxing on different scales improves solidarity among ‘lower- and upper classes’ ,  it is also something that should not be overdone. If this does happen, like it is now, it could de-stimulate and hold back-innovation, or in any case make innovation seek opportunities elsewhere. And after all, thanks to the European Union, it is very easy to go abroad.

More freedom and better education is what we need to ensure a better future for all. Redirecting tax-money is desired, more of these are not.  Stopping processes that make our infrastructure complex and expensive would also prevent doing structural harm to our position relative to other nations. Think only of Rotterdam. The haven provides many jobs and is an essential aspect of our economy. Too much traffic jams ,after cargo has been overhauled to means of transport on land, might result in companies seeking other places to keep costs as low as they can, especially if this involves less financial demands on road-users.  Scrap many subsidies, keep only a few. No one will argue to make life harder for anyone already limited other than by social-economic situations, but this does not mean we cannot cut costs. VVD proposes to decrease cultural subsidies with 250 million Euros. Does no one wonder why it is even possible to do so? To improve situations in our society, the government should provide opportunities, not subsidies. Cheap and well accessible education will make a lot more citizens able for competition.

Very few people still believe anything worthy of admiration will result from the two week during summit in Copenhagen that started yesterday. It is considered as the last reasonable chance to come up with a decent replacement of the Kyoto-protocol that ends in 2012.

Climate skeptics keep referring to the enormous costs involved in fighting climate change, while it is not at all sure that mankind has any influence on the actual process. ‘Greens’ keep stressing we have only one planet and that the evidence is overwhelming. Neither is completely right, but the Greens show more understanding when it comes to its importance, and the irreversibility of some of possible results. What will the Copenhagen summit bring us, and what should it?

The answers given to these questions are very diverse, so we should perhaps begin with the problem itself  before turning  to politics. A lot of open questions remain, despite many attempts to settle the dispute, enormous budgets and much public attention. Let’s stress at the outset that climate change is not settled beyond reasonable doubt. There are skeptics, pros and cons as there are in any field of scientific enterprise. Not so much about the way in which data is gathered or in which way underlying processes function, but about which conclusions to draw from them. So people who doubt whether mankind has a hand in changing this world’s climate have a fair point. What they miss out on is that this is not a justification or argument that needs to make us refrain from taking action.

This seems contradictory, though it is not. We will perhaps someday know whether the ‘greens’ or the skeptics were right. However, if the green side turned out to be right and no action was undertaken it will mean catastrophe. If the skeptics are right, and we did act, no harm has been done, only some money has been lost. Since the issue remains disputed and one side bids us to act now, we would do best by minimizing harm. You can accept or decline this way of reasoning; to me it is very persuasive, after all we only have one earth.

Taking a step back to the summit we have a good number of politicians who either agree with this or are inclined to take more ferocious steps. In my eyes, the Kyoto protocol was a well intentioned, dismal failure. Only in 2004 was it ratified as legally binding by its own standards, since that was the year Russia decided it could no longer turn a blind eye to nature’s troubles. Not that ratification depended on Russia’s support; it was only because at least 55% of the countries that took care of polluting this world needed to be in on it. It would have been utterly useless to have a protocol with a backing lower than that. A big difference favoring our targets and hopes this time is Obama’s position. He does not want to be seen as a president that neglects milieu. True, his visit will be one of short notice  (he will come to Norway to pick up his Nobel-peace prize, visit Copenhagen for a day or two, after which he’ll travel on), but it’s better than not showing up at all.

Even with a good number of politicians supporting a new climate bill, reaching one will get pretty difficult. From America’s point of view there is still the Senate. Obama will need to convince the rest of the world that they will not pose an obstacle on ratification. This would have been much, much easier if America had passed a cap & trade bill before the summit started. Arguing on urgent tones is more convincing if American policies themselves would have implicitly supported it. They might not be the world’s biggest polluter anymore – China can now claim that dubious title – they still account for a big share of it. Fierce American politicians claim that countries such as India, China and Brazil need to make promises too. Their counterstrikes keep reminding of the fact that Westerners already used the opportunity to damage the earth, and that it is not their but America’s task to take initiative. Strikingly as it may seem, China doesn’t even need to act. Their current targets will probably be met without any need for a change in policy. The USA criticized them for this, saying standards are too low. In fact, they are not. China has already done some work on lowering emissions, the only question that remains is whether this is because image-building is so important to Beijing or that they care about our climate. That however, seems illegitimate and misplaced at this time.

Not all the blame is being awarded to America. Politicians are often good at transferring messages and discussing topics in public. Their ideas are not self-styled and written though. Think-tanks and scientists are vital not just to our education. Any politicians willing to fight climate change will find it impossible to do so if not for science. And it is from that corner that more critique arises. Negotiators are diplomats, their “know-why” is often limited. Very few will be able to tell exactly why climate change occurs. A result of this is that their “know-how” is also lacking expertise backing. If you want to resolve issues as complex as this one, a clear and well-founded insight to both problems and solutions are necessary.

Opponents of a climate bill stress the huge costs involved in creating policies towards a problem we are not sure that exists. It isn’t that bad, though it certainly could be. If negotiators’ willingness to come up with a deal that acts fervently, costs by fighting climate change could end up with being no more than 1% of global economic output, compared to about 5% for recent bank and company bail-outs (figures provided by the Economist.com, article “Stopping Climate Change”, Dec. 3rd). Waste time and act bureaucratically, and costs will be sure to rise dramatically. On a side-note, this will also be a good time for Europe to show that the appointment of Van Rompuy and Lady Ashton were not the result of worthless ambitions. Not that their role is likely to be prominent, but European countries have here an excellent chance to show the world it wants to take the lead other than in economics. Brussels: Stand up and take responsibility.

Enforcing a treaty

To make sure that Kyoto’s mistakes are not repeated Copenhagen will have to result in more than a simple draft or agreement. Clear decisions, sooner rather than later, on ways to punish violations are needed. The whole point will be missed if governments can get away with opt-outs (one opt-out and more will surely follow).

Punishments in the form of financial fines are in place then. Since wealth is unequally distributed, this should be taken into account. A possible way in which this could be done is by tying the heights of fines to a percentage of a country’s GDP. I’m sure there will be many ways in which you can fill in the dots, but it is important to make pollution financially unattractive, since the most important interests that fuel opposition against Copenhagen are financial ones.

On a national scale the way in which this can be achieved is familiar: Cap and trade. Setting a maximum emission for pollutants at government level, and then sell the incentives to companies. This will both stimulate development and research on the long term as well as act on a short term when it comes to climate change, as investing in ‘green’ innovation will become financially more attractive and emitting too much will result in penalties. The same could in principle be achieved on a more global scale by setting a total limit, and then share the emissions-slices between the world’s countries. Some room will probably be spared for compensatory measures, such as planting trees, in order to allow countries to emit more (This process is doubtful in the long term since it does not get rid of CO2, it merely stores it for as long as a tree lives.)

When these two principles are combined on global and national scale, an emission-market will appear and regulate distribution and prices. If prices are too low, this will mean that there is too little stimulation for green-innovation as is currently the case. In Europe price per ton of emitted carbon amount to about 20 to 23 Euros, whereas American proposals don’t get any further than a laughable 13 dollars. To actually make investments in research more sensible a steady increase is needed. Also, the money involved and earned by taxing emissions should in part be used to strengthen the circle. This could for instance be done by providing cheap loans to innovation directed at a better climate. Direct subsidies are a bad idea here. Subsidies create too much bureaucracy, resistance and dependence. Companies’ own money is much more important to them. Tax-cuts could be another one, even if these too are rarely good for transparency. (Maybe, in America’s case, this will work if they get politically strong enough to impose a value added tax, get rid of some other ones and create an efficient system to impose this.)

To come back to compensatory measures: Planting trees is said not to be a solution in the long run. That is different from saying they cannot help us in creating more time. Many trees have quite large life-spans, so they’ll be able to take in a lot of CO2 (storing the C and letting out the oxygen in oversimplified words). Yes, when burned or decomposed they’ll let it go again, so any generation of trees that dies will have neutralized the effect of the one that comes after it. We need only think of how many trees we are currently cutting down, not just in rainforests, to know we need to plant a lot of trees to improve climate. However, it does have positive effects, which could be of great importance. It has already been quite successfully argued that if climate change goes on as we expect it to do, some places will thrive when it comes to agriculture, but on the whole the effect will be negative (if climate change goes on, then agriculture will be hit). With a world population growing, probably up until 2050, slowing down that process will do much good, especially when combined with cap and trade, green investments and innovations towards another green revolution. Planting trees in order to buy more time then, seems not such a foolish plan at all, as long as it is not the corner-stone upon which we build.

Now what?

The first step, in order to get things rolling, needs to come from Western countries. They have already had historic opportunities to gain wealth without eying the interests of Mother Nature. Much will depend on Obama’s persuasiveness: He needs to convince the reset that the Senate will ratify this time. Europe seems less likely to block the road here. But only when these two stake-holders of pollution act decisively, will developing nations such as China, India and Brazil follow in their footsteps. All in all we can say it’s a good thing that policies by themselves should be pragmatic in practice, scientific in nature. Now let’s see how pragmatic our leaders actually are. To sum up the current Copenhagen summit: Our hopes are high, our expectations low.

As the first black president of the United States, Obama stirred the hearts and minds of the majority and minorities alike. An American dream, the power of democracy, an event unforeseen and only dreamed of.  Now, with 2009 coming to an end, optimism has fallen, enthusiasm has been tempered and the all too familiar grave political mood has returned, as ubiquitous as ever?

To give you some examples, people now say of him that ‘he is easy to push around’ and ‘is politically too correct’. He did little to pull down expectations during his electoral campaign, for obvious reasons. Now he’ll have to take the dubious credit of not being able to live up to those promises, or so it seems. Stabilizing his image to Native Americans by showing he is a global heavy-weight, without being so only as the result of a long tradition, will be quite hard, which is quite awkward. For Obama’s first year was troublesome, though no failure. What can we say about his performance so far, as an intermediate conclusion and judgment on his time in office?

Domestic affairs: Finances
This question is easiest to answer if we look at some of the major problems the world is facing today. Partly as a result of recent economic crisis, but more due to economic misbehavior in America’s past it is best to start with fiscal debt.  At this moment it is about 70% of GDP, making it no small feat.  Little consensus on policies makes matters complicated, which is like saying, in more pragmatic terms: When and how to act?

It is beyond reasonable doubt that America will have to cut spending or raise income. It is beyond all doubt that no one can come up with a plan supported by Congress. From the bright side, at least for Obama, we can say that acting now will be foolish. Cuts in spending could in principle stop the economy dead in its tracks, making any image-revival of Obama virtually impossible. What he and his team should do is provide the country, and the world for that matter, with a scheme on how America will act, given the chance in the near future. If America’s fiscal policy is sound in the eyes of economists, journalists and businesses this will boost morale and confidence. One clear reason why this is so important is the fuel that drives America’s economy: Research and development, or in another word just ‘innovation’. In many areas vast amounts of money are involved. Seeing these flee to find luck elsewhere would do great harm, not just to an economic revival, to future growth as well.

As the White House is supported by several Think-Tanks, I have little doubt that sooner or later they will propose ways to tackle the problem. Of all sides they will be most likely to walk at a slow pace, possibly reassured by Japan. This Asian country has a debt to GDP ratio much higher than America (about 200%), and it has not resulted in a collapse of either economy or currency. In fact, the Yen has only risen in value. Only don’t be fooled by staring at similarities. It is to the credit of Japanese companies that their efficiency and quality – as well as their monopoly in the production of basic elements for electronics assembly-lines – that they are still going strong. Most countries would probably have seen their export go down rapidly, especially with a currency going strong, making their products expensive. America needs to learn from this. It could prove a near fatal blow to growth if the dollar would suddenly go strong in comparison to the Euro, Yen, Yuan and Pound (..if only China would de-couple the Yuan from the dollar).

A good way to achieve this would be by making sure spending is kept on level, if necessary by more government market-intervention or quantitative easing (it would be lethal to abuse this option however: Too much money would mean higher interest rates, resulting in financial burdens that would bend any knee). All the same, it is better to spend too much, than to cut too early.  More money circulating is likely to hold the dollar back, improving prospects for exporting firms. A shift from consuming products to exporting them is desired in any case, just as it is the other way around for ‘counterweight’ China. Good hopes tell us that this will stimulate economies worldwide, providing a much better balance.

Fiscal policies hang tightly together with currency control, albeit not China style. Another discussed topic this year was the so called ‘demise of the dollar’. In particular as a trusted reserve currency, in more general terms as a total eclipse. With America’s image falling and economies taking hard punches, this only seemed to be the next logical step, but it isn’t. It is a far-fetched scenario, an unwanted scenario.  First of all Japan has already shown that fiscal debt does not mean a weak currency, so there is as yet no reason to come up with doom-predictions. Second, the American state has a habit of doing pay-backs in time, which is good for mutual trust and bonds. Thirdly the dollar simply does not have any real competitors. No currency is as well trusted, known and liked as the dollar, which is the simple truth of the matter. Adding a fourth will not be necessary, since it is entailed by the third: By having bought huge amounts of American State obligations, China and Japan hold its fate in their hands. But it also means that, if the dollar collapses, nearly all Chinese and Japanese reserves evaporate. The dollar stronghold goes deep to the hearts of many economies. It might not be essential, but it sure as hell is important.

All this might make you think America cleverly held a firm grip on the world. This is not exactly the case. China and Japan are perhaps in theory able to wreck the dollar, America is only to a certain extent able to steer it where it wants it to go. If they let their currency fall too steeply, interest rates will increase rapidly, making loans too expensive and risky in light of future, possibly higher, values of the dollar. So Obama will need to get out of his office again and take firm steps. Controlling the deficit comes in as a first priority in the years to come. When the government will not face the deficit it will probably amount to about 4% of GDP in 2014, whereas European standards allow no more than 2 or 3% as acceptable. Furthermore, it would postpone the burden of a higher debt to future generations.

Raising income is at this point his only option. Obama needs to be cunning to get this to work, for this generally means more or higher taxes. And taxes, especially with republicans keen on pointing to Obama’s campaign promises (no income under $250.000 would see its taxes rise), are notoriously difficult to get through Congress. Our only hope focuses itself on Congress’ and public’s realizations of how large the problem is.  A good number of proposals have so far been made (no, not by government institutions. They are still reluctant to burn their hands). Best of these would be a value-added tax, meaning taxing products in every state of production. Actually, America is the only OECD-country not yet to have implemented this system. Normally this would be a good argument in favour of the hypothesis that it is a decent way to go. Not in this case: In European countries VAT’s are quite normal, however in America no one is used to the idea, so a complete new tax will have to be introduced, arguably being more problematic than raising old ones. How and when that is going to be shoved down people’s throats is no light-issue. As politicians who oppose this system have also pointed out, VAT’s are handy in creating ‘small’ changes in tax-revenues by increasing percentages via a slippery slope.

Domestic affairs 2: Health-care
Drawing the discussion on domestic finances to an end, we see that it is still quite neutral. Almost all will depend on decisions that have yet to be made, or even worse: drafted. When it comes to health-care we land in a wholly different landscape. Everything has been discussed many times over already, details rather than general economic ‘laws’ count. Discussed several times previously on this site, health-care is all that is American politics: Sensitive, detailed, riddled with tradition and full of principles.

At this moment it is no longer just a battle between leftish Democrats and right-winged Republicans. The House of Representatives already passed a bill, it is now up to the Senate in order to come up with their own version, and then to combine both into one law for the president to sign. In many ways the two versions are already quite similar. One big difference is the fact that the Senate included an opt-out to each-state for government-run insurance schemes. This is a clever way to work around demand such as the one by Nancy Pelosi who stated that “no bill would be accepted without a government-run scheme”.  On the whole, the Senate’s proposal is slightly favourable because it also cures a disease that goes deeper beneath the surface of America’s health-care problems:  Subsidies given to employer-provided insurance, resulting in over-insurance. This is not done, as the House would have it, by just taxing the rich. Rather the Senate chose to cut taxes on the most expensive health-policies, which will, in the most positive case, bring more private- and less company-insurance, therefore less tinkering with payrolls in order to get the subsidies, hence higher loans.

Don’t worry, there are still negative issues left to write about. Obama’s magical budget of $900 billion dollars for instance. It is not at all clear if it will be met or thrown aside. Yes, all the numbers tell us it will cost less so that it will not add to America’s deficit. However, those numbers pre-suppose magical cuts in, to name an example, doctors’ salaries. No small cuts: About a fifth. Failed attempts in the past are numerous, no one knows why and if they will succeed in getting a decent ‘pay for quality’ instead of ‘pay for service’ this time. Whatever happens in the near future, we have arrived at the president’s first (modest?) success: Health-care reform. And let’s be honest, no one managed to get as far as he did for decades.

Afghan reinforcements and allies
Earlier it was pointed out that Obama’s image changed for the worse. Up till now, we saw finances as a relatively neutral area, where not much blame or praise can be ascribed to Obama, and health-care, where he seems to head at modest success, at least and last. We will now start looking at some more controversial aspects, starting with Afghanistan, a bit on Iraq, then Guantanamo, Palestine and Israel, China and Japan and ending with climate change.

Last week we finally got a look into Obama’s aims in Afghanistan. More troops, not the requested 45.000, but about 30.000. This shows no lack of rigor. Obviously no government would send as many troops when it did not back it. In a speech in which he announced and explained his thoughts, Obama also pointed towards a (tentative) deadline of retreat: 2011. My first impression was one of hopeless presidential optimism. Reasons provided afterwards, by drawing on the need for Afghanistan to stand on its own legs and that America had no long term interest in staying there, nuanced my opinion for the better. Recalling memories of the war in Iraq, it is not very hard to see why Obama’s deadline is a clever move. It spreads a clear message of Afghan-independence, but it has also barricaded or delayed large American protests, lethal to public opinion. American people are bound to realize they are the only one putting up a real fight anyway. On the other side, coming up with even a further removed deadline will always create possibilities to manipulate the message, and it is not hard for the Taliban to claim that America ‘is not capable, willing and strong enough to put up a lasting fight’. A retreat by the Taliban is not necessary, since they’re on home grounds. Success then will depend on how much Afghan people believe that there is enough time to eradicate evil to secure the future.

Particularly important is that Afghanistan will go on without foreign interventions and aid. America realizes this, shown by the official request of Mrs Clinton earlier this week to the Dutch government. The Netherlands, stationed in Uruzgan and partly occupied with training troops, are due to leave Afghanistan in August 2010, a very dubious step. The Dutch have been there since 2006 and are not just familiar with Afghan grounds, also with its people. This was later underlined by Hadam, governor of Uruzgan. He requested van Middelkoop, Dutch minister of Defense, to prolong their stay, concluding that if they were to leave now, they would have done only half a job. In the unlikely event of Hadam influencing opinions in The Hague, we still have Mrs Clinton’s request. And though no Dutch politician will admit it, they all glow when high officials ask for a ‘small favour’. Perhaps Obama and Clinton should pay closer attention to such potential snow-ball effects. When more European countries are dragged into this war, opposition or opts-out will be under pressure. How ironic is it that there has been hardly any attention, from America’ side, to Britain’s gesture of sending more troops? The number wasn’t very high; nevertheless it was an increase, not a discussion about withdrawal.

On Afghanistan our conclusions are slightly positive then. Obama has shown a willingness to make decisive steps while keeping objectives in clear-sight, realizing a withdrawal cannot be postponed indefinitely. By doing so, he chose side not with his own nation, but with the people of Afghanistan. And that is of major importance. I argued something similar on Iraq several weeks ago, by stating that leaving should not be taken as the only option if a small lengthening of the stay improves security. Unlikely as that might seem he has at least shown to be not as quick on jumping to conclusions as his voters: Anyone not supporting the war would have withdrawn quicker. Some credit goes to the political situation as well, as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are in a sense much less likely to create problems in Congress than issues like health-care. Republicans didn’t want to leave Iraq nor Afghanistan. They are unwilling to lose face, so they’ll support Obama in his plans for more troops. His own party, the Democrats, supports the wars much less; luckily for Obama they want to back their president.

Problems: Israel & Palestine and Iran
Hot and fierce as always: The unpolished, double faced coin of Israel and Palestine. Obama’s administration has done little more than wasting energy, and it is sometimes doubted whether America took the issue seriously enough this year.  Building settlements is a thorn in the eyes of Palestinians, but America did not dare to openly condemn it, resulting in indignation after Clinton’s infamous and bizarre words of praise. That was before Netanyahu, on November 25^th, announced that Israel would stop building settlements on the West Bank for ten months. Naturally this was not nearly enough according to Abbas, leader of secular Fatah which is in control of the West Bank. Their demand is a complete halt to any new and old settlements building, for which they have good reasons. America doesn’t recognize the legitimacy of the settlements either. Israel on the other hand speaks of “far-reaching and painful steps”.  Concessions are inevitable. Both sides have seen more than enough bloodshed to know what is in their best interests, and both sides are also held back by a relatively small number of extremists and fundamentalists, ruining relations.

What interests us here is what Obama should do. Which route to take? Not one of unconditional friendship of the Israeli’s. Support their existence and security by any means you want, but learn to condemn any practices you deem immoral or illegitimate, of which war-crimes and settlements are two. Full blown attention will be a prerequisite. At this moment, with Copenhagen, Afghanistan and health-care consuming his time, it is unrealistic to think he will be able to help achieving peace. There are reasons why all his predecessors failed: Complexity, emotions and a history of presumptuous prejudices. To ask of a president who hasn’t even visited the country to solve its problems is lunacy.

Things get even messier when this year comes to an end. December will be the last month in which Iran gets friendly options to stop enriching uranium. Officials vehemently state that they’re only doing it to produce energy, though even sceptics  are now unable to buy this story. Especially after discovering a new secret military base where more uranium is probably being enriched. With Ahmadinejad walking the provocative route, we’ll do best to prepare our sanctions in writing, so that they’ll get into effect from the 1^st of January. Not that this will happen, Russia and China are still reluctant to impose sanctions as economic interests will be endangered. China depends on the country for oil supplies for instance. Saudi-Arabia probably wouldn’t mind though, if Iran blocks supplies to China because of sanctions, they will have one big, extra client.

All the same, we should hurry. Terrorism is one thing that worries, a corrupt, anti-Western state with nuclear arms is another, much bigger worry. The best route to take is imposing sanctions that will make proceeding economically so devastating, that it is just too expensive to continue enriching uranium and preventing checks by western-officials.  Some sketch an even gloomier prospect in which, by Israel’s hands, we’ll end up with another war. No one wants another war, and how probable it is remains unclear. Israel is a powerful state and they will be weary to see Iran becoming a nuclear power. Remind yourself of the 80’s: Bombing nuclear power plants is no science-fiction. That they’ll succeed without America’s help is unlikely, but no success without an attempt. If it ever gets as far as that, we can suspect Israel having America’s backing in any case. Best to prevent such, at this moment still far-fetched, calamities by other means.

Human rights and cultures

Guantanamo-Bay is another issue making people regard Obama as a president that is way too soft. Human-right watchers were among those who got their hopes up last year, awed by wonderful one-liners such as “We reject as false the choice between our safety and ideals.” He might still believe in that, only he does not live up to it.  As expected, Guantanamo Bay is now by official words deemed unlikely, political words for impossible, to close in January next year. It proved incredible hard to transfer prisoners elsewhere, because no state or country wants to the prisoners under their roof. Another pain-staking question is if trials should be held according to public law, or to military law. If it’s going to be public law, then the master-mind behind the 9/11 attacks will be judged before a court in New York, and many seriously doubt if a panel of citizens can remain objective. Besides, many prisoners that are held in Guantanamo are held for reasons ‘worthy’ of a military trial. You can spot the difficulties, not in the least sense ethical ones. Anyway, holding people without a trial under dubious conditions cannot be justified by their own, or any, standards.

China too becomes interesting again from this perspective. Ethicists will have plenty of work to do there. The vast country was honored by a visit of Obama and a part of his administration in November. They probably spoke about climate change and economic ties. What was likely to escape their attention is summed up as human-rights. No questions were allowed during a press-conference, something quite different than from the time of Bill Clinton. Possibly the Chinese government is afraid of their people getting into touch with freedom-thoughts. Westerners don’t seem particularly bothered with this, underlined by the way in which contacts with the Dalai-Lama were handled. Dutch prime-minister Balkenende decided not to speak with him prior to the Olympic Games in Beijing, and now Obama has done the same. Why, so as not to hurt China’s feelings or because economic interests are more important than ethical-norms?

Another noteworthy event in his visit to Asia was his meeting with the Japanese Emperor. Obama once again showed more respect and political sensibility than any of his predecessors.  When meeting Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko at the Imperial Palace, Obama bowed. Not just a tiny flick of the back, but a courteous, near 90 degrees bow. Critics surged at him for defying ‘state department protocol’: Presidents bow to no one! Even L.A. times writer Andrew Malcolm went as far as suggesting that his bow was undignified and showed a lack of understanding of the history between the two countries.

Well not at all. It was Malcolm who showed a lack of understanding of Japanese history, and Obama, who apparently took notice of Japanese values and traditions, implicitly put to rest a lot of tensions, of which many were the result of haunted, 20^th century memories. It’s of no use to dwell in past misgivings, especially not if it gets in the way of a better future. What has happened will not be undone, and important is that everyone realizes it must never happen again. The foolhardy, unimaginative idealists miss the point of bowing; it was not an act of inferiority. It was a courteous act, one that showed respect and willingness to cooperate on equal footing.

The importance of that should not be underestimated. America has had a treaty with Japan for decades, known as the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan. The USA will be obliged to defend Japan when this becomes necessary in light of disasters or war, albeit in close cooperation with the Japan Self-Defence Forces. America in return has military bases stationed on Japan, currently holding about 33.000 soldiers.  With North-Korea as a (potential) nuclear power and China holding an arms-race it is of strategic importance for all free societies if America stays in Japan. Many Japanese used to be fond of the pact, although several deaths and a case of rape have damaged the army’s status. Aircraft noise, pollution and crimes by US service personnel only make a turn of public opinion go faster, as recent protests indicated. This especially relates to the base on Okinawa Island, called Futenma, because it is located in the middle of a densely populated area. That island’s geography is too good to leave behind however, since the US can reach China, Taiwan and North-Korea without moving. This is another one of those difficult matters in which Obama needs to convince other governments that it is not just in America’s interest to extend further cooperation.

These are hard issues. Not because the solutions are vague, most of them are not. What they do show us is that it is easy for two fields of human activity to clash: Economic activities as opposed to issues of justice.  Of course Obama knows this. He has shown know-how on sensitive cultural issues. But whereas he did a good job on this in Japan, he failed to do so in China, where he should clearly have taken a firmer stand on human-rights. Guantanamo is probably different. It is not a question of being unwilling, it is more the fact of the task’s difficulties, something  that was previously underestimated.

The concept of cooperation gets more important as days pass by. Military and economic arguments are ready at hand to prove it. Climate change is another one of these highly prestigious projects. I am not a skeptic when it comes to climate change, even if I don’t think the proof is conclusive. Actually, proof is never conclusive. Not acting and turning out to be wrong would be much worse than acting and turning out to be wrong however, and we only have one planet so we better not take the risk. Obama seems to think along these lines too, as his decision to visit Copenhagen in person indicates. It would have become a joke if he hadn’t, since his country is one of the world’s biggest polluters.

Copenhagen
The last international troubling thing we will discuss is the summit in Copenhagen. The aim is a replacement for the Kyoto protocol, which was never ratified by the Senate. America’s Congress, mainly the Senate, is hardly filled with enthusiasm to counter climate change. Activists have put their faith in Obama, who seems keen to prevent his image from sliding into one that neglects milieu.  Copenhagen offers the last meeting on government level before the climate agreement will be renewed, but sadly general expectations are low.

The White House might have words with a nice sound to them; so far no notable goals have been achieved.  Passing a cap and trade bill would be an enormous boost, yet no one reasonable believes this will happen before or during the Copenhagen meeting. This means damage to America’s image. Mainly developing countries stress the responsibility of wealthy, industrialized nations: They have been able to pluck the fruits of pollution, now they should pay the price. It’s an odd fact that China will not have to change course to reach its goals. America has used this as a critique by saying standards are too low. This is unjustified: They have already taken measures. Sure, they could do more, only not before America acts. Cooperation is a key word here: No treaty will work if neither the US nor China is involved (Obama’s goal of 80% reduction by 2050 will certainly not). In the times of Bush Sr. the cuts that would have to be made seemed too severe and unworthy. These days the messages are different, as Mrs. Clinton’s acknowledgment of past climate emissions makes clear: “The US is no longer absent without leave”.  Hoping for Obama to loosen the tongues and turn the tie by assuring other nations that America will cut emissions in the near future is not very realistic, as his visit to Denmark will probably be of short notice.

Not this year, maybe next year
Now we can start summing up some of what has been said. Financial times are getting better. And as long as hot heads are overruled by good hearts they will hopefully remain doing so. No cuts, perhaps some more economic stimulation and a good plan for the years to come are pillars that should be kept in mind. Change in health-care is on its way. Wars and human-rights are the most obscure of all. Afghanistan has now seen some of what goes on in his head, but Israel and Palestine are still on the waiting-list. Boosting his image by putting Iran back into place will make him a stronger person in the eyes of many, and it might also win him favors on the side of Israel, making future demands taking off from higher grounds.

You might, as I do, spot a trend in all these things: We cannot see how Obama will be received in history. We don’t know what his grand schemes will do, whether these roads are strong enough to carry a country’s weight.  A judgement on his presidency only on first year arguments will not be fair. Maybe we can now say: 2009 was the year of inauguration, press and glamour, decline and criticism? And then, maybe next year: This was the year of president Obama, where he did not finish the roads he started building on, but where he showed us at least that they lead somewhere?

This article is mainly focused on Bayesianism, a popular interpretation of the concept of probability used to evaluate hypothesis and justify the extent to which we feel confident that they are true. It replaces in part the famous, or infamous, problem of induction. The problem of induction was first explicitly brought to light by David Hume, an interesting Scottish philosopher with a lovely writing-style. It has served as a wall to bang your philosophically-inclined head against for centuries. Bayesianism does not solve this problem, let this be clear, but it does in part propose a way of clarifying why induction is so persuasive. I don’t think it’ll pose any problem at all for someone to read this, whether you are normally interested in philosophy or not. In any case, it is an interesting topic that deserves your attention. The only question that remains is whether my manner of my writing about it does so too, something for you to judge.

Especially on philosophical things comments and criticism are much appreciated, so I would strongly invite you to do so. Also question about concepts or statements that are unclear to you are welcome, I will be more than happy to talk, discuss or explain related issues.

——————————————————————————————-

… An essential feature of Neyman-Pearson statistics is the aim to deny a place to false hypotheses and to reserve a place for those that are true. As risk here, as with practically all demands in theories within the boundaries of the philosophy of science, is making a theory too cold, meaning you set standards too low and everything will become scientifically meaningful, or on the other hand making demands too hot, so as to exclude knowledge that definitely belongs to epistemological areas.

As we will see shortly, this is exactly what happens with Neyman-Pearson statistics. Still, it is interesting. It is especially interesting when we combine it with a view on just what sets Bayesianism apart from other statistical ways of justification. Both have their own shortcomings, since neither has a core that is solely objective. We’ll take a quick look at why the first doesn’t work, after which we’ll discuss the alternative offered to us by Bayesians.

The trick to keep in the good stuff, and jettison the bad stuff has been prominent since the positivists. Their war on metaphysics is a part of practically any curriculum in philosophy education and provides an easy way to start talking about verifying and falsifying hypotheses. Anyone busy in the area of epistemology knows to be true what was just said, that the difficult task is one of including and excluding; science and pseudoscience; empiricism and metaphysics. So many different accounts have been given, that identifying and solving problems is sure to give you work for a lifetime.

Neyman and Person tried it via a hypothesis test. A simplified way of expressing this talks of Rejection of H and A, where H is hypothesis one and A an alternative two that is incompatible with H. To derive, or not to derive, a rejection will depend on the height of the number to which the individual constant X refers, and on the ratio you will get after filling the number into the theory. The formulation itself is not important here, what is more important are its philosophical implications: In ideal circumstances, when A is true, H will come out false. They are aiming for this goal by going for small-size on the one hand, and for greater strength on the other. It is not sure that these two pillars can be combined: It is as much as saying that you want to minimize size, and maximize power within statistics.  This can also be found in what is known as ‘The Fundamental Lemma of Neyman and Pearson:

“In the case of simple dichotomy, there exists, for any possible size, a uniquely most powerful test of that size. It may be a mixed test, but it is unique.”[1]

And within statistics, much power is derived from large numbers, especially when your core is weak in qualitative measures. And that is something to which I cannot ascribe much strength (it has strong ties with so called ‘likelihood tests’). So too has the ‘optional stopping’, which brings along at least two problems. The first is the most essential: When is a proposition falsified or verified, in other words: When have we collected enough data in order for us to stop investigating? The answer is, with induction lurking around the corner, ‘never’. The other question strongly relates to this, only it is more specific by a focus on the formula’s goals (small, strength). When you for have the aforementioned two hypotheses that are mutually exclusive, you need to know both when one is granted more probability than the other, why, what is worthy of confirmation or disconfirmation and when does ‘the most likely outcome’ swap sides, i.e. when will enough con- or disconfirmation have taken place to speak of a different allegiance of belief?

Bayesianism deals with these issues in a very different manner. We can see this when we take a look at its most basic formula, according to A. Bird:

Bayesianism does not take off from grounds that are self evident. In fact Bayes theorem is accepted by almost all probabilistic minded-philosophers, what they do not accept are the conclusions Bayesians infer from them. How then do they themselves view the way in which hypotheses need confirming or disconfirming? Recall an alternative here, in order to make a clear contrast. Take Hempel, famous for the Raven-paradox. He struggled with a qualitative notion of confirmation by asking what it is for given evidence to confirm a hypothesis. How much confirmation is supported by evidence is the quantitative notion that should later be dealt with, after settling with the qualitative aspect. Bayesians think this is all wrong. For them, confirmation is something quantitative in nature right from the start. We can’t ask whether evidence confirms or disconfirms a hypothesis, unless we know how probable H was in the first place. This simply means that, for something to be able to be confirmed or disconfirmed, it needs a prior probability. The way in which results are obtained is quite straightforward really, at least in essence it is (things can get messy and complicated, though this author likes to keep things clear). After a hypothesis with a given probability is confronted with evidence, it is confirmed if the probability rises, and disconfirmed if the probably gets lower in light of the evidence.

Now this brings along some difficulties. How do you attach probability to something?  We can’t just rule out subjectivism, because what to is subjectivist to you might seem wholly reasonable to me. I’ll to illustrate this with a short and simplified historical example about the concept ‘gene’. After Darwin’s ‘On the origin of species’ biological knowledge was granted to enter a whole new paradigm, albeit reluctantly. Natural selection, especially after it was combined with G. Mendel’s heredity, got a boost that still reverberates today. Even so, genes were unknown entities at the beginning of the 20^th century. It took a long time after the term was invented before they were actually discovered. This did not prevent anyone from using the term within a referential framework, that is to say: it did not prevent biologists from assigning them certain characteristics and qualities, despite the fact no one had ever proven their existence. Does this fact make talking about or making predictions with ‘genes’ something unscientific at the beginning of the last century? I should think not. If anything, it was a clear and wonderful result of intellectual expectations, based on inferences from good, probable knowledge. Still if we would add up the probability numbers of such an entity existing, it is certainly not unimaginable that its result would be quite low given the fact that they are based on non-existing evidence, hence either their place in Bayes theorem is illegitimate, or the theorem casts aside genuine scientific innovation. Now don’t be disappointed, things are not that clear.

There are two ways to go here. The first is opting to build on prior knowledge, of which genes were no part. The second is including not just results of things we only grasp inductively, but also things we have not yet accounted for by evidence but which play a decent, functional role in our theories nevertheless. In many cases this would seem like cheating, but since we are talking about probability and (future) testing this is clearly not the case here. A difficulty that would certainly arise is of course how you would assign a certain probability number to genes, and this has strong ties with beliefs, however rational these in essence might be, for as we know, gene-adherents turned out to be right.

This brings us to the aforementioned subjectivism. There is no standard to set probability, at least not at the beginning of the process. This does not mean we should immediately bow our heads in despair. As I see it we have several good things that can lead to many good things, such as a demand for consistency with other beliefs in your web of knowledge and their mutual dependence of those beliefs (we don’t want ‘red wine is sacred liquid’ something probable, because it is atomic in its meaning and therefore quite useless indeed). Demands when it comes to falsifying, verifying, corroboration and repeatability of tests also spark the imagination. All of these have shortcoming however, which means Bayesianism will take at least a part of the blow by leaning on them.

For consistency makes it easy to stay dogmatic; think of the religious paradigm. Darwin’s evidence was inconsistent with it. Should we have laid evolution to rest as a theory, especially because many thought it, at first sight, so unlikely? Of course not. Assigning a higher probability to well known hypotheses rather than to the unknown ones is something intuitive. People ascribe beliefs to others and themselves every day, social interaction would not be able to function if this didn’t happen. In normal conversations this does not lead to problems, since we’re not typically occupied with justifying all of our beliefs. Some, like political or ethical points of view, might need elaboration but they seldom get into the depths where Bayesianism finds itself. So where do we start? An initial position will be necessary for any theory. And they can come up with nothing better than subjectivism.

That sounds like a negative judgment, although it isn’t. Bayesianism is our best alternative; the only thing it is not able to solve is the problem of induction. True, it gives us much explanatory power on why induction works and why it seems a good thing to put your faith in. In this article I have largely left aside the issue of objective versus subjective probability. And I had good reasons to do so, or at I least I thought I had. I don’t think objective probability is likely, not at all. Its ideal poses obstacles too readily in our path, even without impossible, infinite regression. In the end hardly anyone of us beliefs in rigid and objective standards, why would probability be any different? As far as subjectivism goes, we won’t be able to get it more objectivistic than this.

A request for a building-permit in 2005, in a small municipality in eastern Switzerland, eventually resulted in a huge controversy. People didn’t only actively seek ways in which to prevent Muslims from adding a minaret to their mosque, they even went to as far as the Federal Supreme Court in preventing the six meter high tower to be built. They lost.

But only the first round as we saw this week. On November 29th, the Swiss-people voted in a referendum on a constitutional amendment that forbids building any new minarets and voted in favor with a 57,5% majority. Also a majority of the cantons, needed in order for the law to be approved, turned out not to be much of a problem: 19,5 out of 23 passed the bill (cantons are member states of the federal state). This made it even more surprising, for many polls told us that the referendum would probably rid us of this strange proposal. As it stands, it will be implemented. No one doubts that this will not be the end of the issue.

It’s a peculiar issue, for when such massive opposition to building minarets arises, you might start to think that they are a prominent aspect of the Alp-country’s landscapes. However, they are not. Switzerland currently holds only four of them, and since it is a free, democratic and secular state this seems no big deal. Still, it bothers people.  Not because of inherent objections to Islamic religion, or so the argument goes, only because the minaret is in their eyes a symbol of Islamic law, and therefore incompatible with Swiss’s legal system. This sound is echoed by MEP Oskar Freysinger (Swiss People’s Party), who clearly states that “we don’t have anything against Muslims”, before elaborating on minaret’s as a symbol of aggressive imperialism rather than open Islamic tendencies.

As in many places, right winged politicians are doing well. Since this is a general election year, hard-liners, as a replacement for overly optimistic one-liners such as ‘yes we can’, are doing well, adding more weight to the prejudices many people already hold. Unsurprisingly, Dutch Geert Wilders was quick to congratulate the Swiss nation with this decision. He even proposed holding just such a referendum in the Netherlands. Luckily, there are many people who seem to reason their way out this upheaval. Zurich, Geneva and Basel, the countries three biggest cities, all voted against. Street protests have been organized, protest banners reading claims as ‘this is not my Switzerland’; ‘I did not grew up in this country’. The largest political parties have firmly pressed citizens to vote against this plan too, backed by the Vatican, as both saw it as a real threat to religious peace, stability and freedom.

And there is more. Economic interests for instance. Arab nations, whose majority adheres to Islam, are huge investors in Swiss businesses and innovation processes. It is not unlikely that they will refrain from doing so in the future. Economic interests are trampled by those of morality however, as the old saying tell us: Rights trump utilities. And that is something definitely true in this case, even if it is a false generalization. Whatever the faults of Muslim fundamentalist might be, we cannot and should not make peaceful living Muslims a target. There are many discussions whether it is even possible for Islam to be combined with democratic freedoms and values, but that does not mean we have to dispose our own values.

A last remark or question, to which the answer is still unclear, is whether this new step by the Swiss is actually legal. They might not be a member of the European Union, but they have signed several international treaties that bear on freedom-rights. Whether it clashes with this will depend on how essential a minaret will be judged to be for religious practices and expression, as well as on the extent to which this new law is a result of unfair discrimination.

All that has happened misses the actual point though. It borders on arbitrariness and stupidity to forbid building buildings. Solve problems where they need solving, don’t create more reasons to create more problems. And how can a minaret be a symbol of oppression if we do not recognize it to be just that? It is a building that many believers attach value to, even if it is not essential in religious practices. We should realize that when problems arise, when it comes to women treatment to name one, it will make no difference at all whether a building does or does not exist. It is practices and values we need to worry about.

(I am a fervent atheist. I do not support any religious doctrine; I just think this will do more harm than good)