The first several articles advocate for all the rights of all Palestinians, starting with the most recent.
Self-determination: What is the legitimate self?
The Zionist lobby in England prevented the conference planned at the University of Southampton on Israel's legitimacy (www.israelpalestinelaw.com) in spring 2015 and again in spring 2016. The conference will now be held at University College Cork and the Cork City Hall in Ireland 31 March - 2 April 2017. My paper for the conference argues that for Israel to be a legitimate state, it must enfranchise the whole of the legitimate citizenry belonging to whatever state rules between the river and the sea. All Palestinians, wherever they live, belong to this legitimate citizenry, so their re-enfranchisement is a necessary condition for Israel's legitimacy.
45 short paragraphs arguing for the expulsion of Israel from the UN, plus some footnotes and relevant documents. A motion at the Annual General Meeting of the UK Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) on 23 January 2016 requiring the PSC to lobby the UK Government to put forth a Security Council motion to expel Israel based on the UN Charter Article 6 was defeated 76-116. One can now sign a 38 degrees petition calling for Israel's expulsion from the UN.
This is my review in the Journal of Holy Land and Palestine Studies, edited by the historian Nur Masalha, of a book that comes as a relief because, following the notorious Benny Morris, it admits Zionism's crimes of massacres, ethnic cleansing, land theft and decades-long deception. This spares us arguing over the historical facts; we can move on to ethical and political judgment of Zionism's deeds. Shavit likes it, in the manner of 'It was either us or them.' His bottom line is preserving in Palestine, a part of the world that had nothing to do with persecution of Jews, not Jews themselves or any old Jewishness, but his own preferred brand of secular, Western European Jewishness. History will pass judgment on this immoral justification of brutal colonialism and ethnic cleansing preached by Shavit and his fans in the West like Peter Beinart, David Remnick and Jonathan Freedland.
This was in Middle East Eye on 16 June 2015. It reports on a progressive 2-day event in London sponsored by Independent Jewish Voices on the Zionism-Palestinian conflict where however with one exception the speakers remained with Zionism, arguing for two states, or 'bi-nationalism' or equal rights between the river and the sea but without the refugees. The event was a snapshot of current cutting-edge thinking by people who have still not gone the last mile for ALL rights for ALL Palestinians. http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/shadings-zionism-1684507084
Jonathan Freedland not suitable as Guardian editor
Freedland was mentioned in late 2014 in the press as a possible successor to Alan Rusbridger as chief editor of the Guardian. Believing his Zionist (racist) beliefs and writings unfit for the relatively decent and liberal Guardian, I analysed dozens of his past columns on the Zionism-Palestine conflict. I found a Palestinian-free zone, based on Freedland's emotional and familial ties to Israel. From Counterpunch 13 February 2015 http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/13/why-jonathan-freedland-isnt-fit-to-be-the-new-editor-in-chief-of-the-guardian/
Update March 2015: Katherine Viner has been named new chief editor but my criticism still holds, the more so as Freedland remains 'Executive Editor, Opinion, overseeing Comment is free, editorials and long reads'. He has mercifully let off a bit on the Israel/Jewishness topic and now focuses on Corbyn-bashing, Corbyn being a much softer Zionist than he and thus to be fought tooth and nail.
Vexed by a split amongst supporters of One Democratic State in Palestine, I looked into the main dispute, that over the writings of Gilad Atzmon. This piece was in Counterpunch 1 February 2013. While criticising Atzmon on 5 points, it finds him innocent of the charges of 'anti-semitism', holocaust denial and usurpation of Palestinian voices. http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/01/the-case-of-gilad-atzmon/
From here down are my articles on ecological economics starting with the oldest one.
'John Rae and Thorstein Veblen', Journal of Economic Issues 38 (3) (2004), pp 765 - 786.
In 1834 John Rae wrote about what can be called 'display consumption' - otherwise known as conspicuous, status, prestige or competitive consumption. Such consumption raises overall levels of consumption, increasing negative environmental impact. It logically knows no limits, and very likely has evolutionary roots. In almost identical terms Thorstein Veblen's The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899) developed the analysis a bit further. I later discovered that even before Rae, Jean-Baptiste Say in his Treatise (1803) had presented the much the same analysis.
In his 1865 book The Coal Question William Stanley Jevons gave a strong demonstration, both theoretical and empirical, that when technological change allows an input into economic production such as coal to produce more output in terms of goods and services, the macroeconomic result that more, not less, of the input gets demanded and consumed. Today this is known not only as Jevons' Paradox but as the rebound effect. If technological-efficiency rebound is at or even close to 100%, heightened resource-input efficiency will increase product (affluence) but not be effective in conserving the resource. Thus the efficiency strategy for lowering depletion and pollution rates is environmentally neutral or even counterproductive. Necessarily effective policies like caps on the resource are the only alternative.
'Historical overview of the Jevons Paradox in the literature'
This is a chapter in the 2008 book 'Jevons' Paradox: The Myth of Resource Efficiency', published by Earthscan and co-edited with Mario Giampietro, Kozo Mayumi and John Polimeni. Jevons in 1865 said his paradox - that increased efficiency in the use of coal led to more, not less, coal consumption - was easy to resolve. Why? Because he was steeped in the writings of William Petty, Richard Cantillon, Adam Smith, Lord Lauderdale, Jean-Baptiste Say, David Ricardo, Thomas Robert Malthus, James Mill, John Rae and John Stuart Mill, that's why. They explained why greater input productivity, through the price mechanism, increased demand so much that demand for the input outraced the sum of all the individual, temporary savings made in each use or application of the more-efficiently-used imput, be it labour, coal, or land.
'The sufficiency strategy: Would rich-world frugality lower environmental impact?' Ecological Economics 64 (4) (2008), pp 770-786.
It is said that if so-called 'over-consumers' would cut their consumption they would be personally better off and at the same time lower overall depletion and pollution in the world economy. However, very similar to the efficiency rebound there is a sufficiency rebound: Lowered demand by the voluntarily frugal lowers prices, enabling 'marginal consumers' to take up the slack. Effective overall demand for material inputs to production does not decline, rendering this sustainability strategy ineffective. It is not even certain that intra-generational justice is served, because the slack in demand can be taken up by other relatively rich people. The argument for personal benefits is moreover inconclusive. The sufficiency rebound is another phenomenon pointing to the sole effectiveness of caps on depletion and pollution.
'Energy rebound and economic growth: A review of the main issues and research needs', Energy 34 (2009), pp 370-376.
Written with Dr Reinhard Madlener, this article attempts to clarify the concepts in the confused rebound discussion: direct rebound, indirect rebound, engineering savings, backfire, the costs of technological efficiency increase, the analogy with labour-efficiency increases, where lies the burden of proof, etc. That technological efficiency increases are a driver of economic growth is undisputed. But how much resource depletion and pollution is entailed by a unit of 'economic growth'?
'Impact caps: Why population, affluence and technology strategies should be abandoned', Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010), pp 552-560.
Written for the first international degrowth conference in Paris, I take the formula I = PAT seriously. It says that the degree of environmental impact (depletion and pollution of all kinds of natural resources) is a product of the number of people, the amount of goods and services each on average consumes, and the amount of depletion and pollution that goes into producing the average unit of goods and services. It turns out that a change in any right-side factor changes the other right-side factors, meaning that any lowering of Population or Affluence or any raising of Technological efficiency causes the other two to rise, most likely leaving Impact unchanged or even higher ('backfire'). So one should write I = f(P, A, T). To lower Impact, one must do simply that: place caps (maxima) on resource consumption and pollution.
'Mill's Scissors: Structural change and the natural-resource inputs into labour', Journal of Cleaner Production 21 (2012), pp 83-92.
Heartfelt thanks to the editors of the Journal of Cleaner Production for publishing this iconoclastic piece - my favourite of my articles. We are told by green strategists that we can earn and spend the same amount of money, but on goods and services with lower 'environmental intensity', and thereby consume less of the environment. But this ignores that when we buy labour - as opposed to energy or materials - we are in effect buying the materials and resources that the recipient of the wages, salaries, dividends and rents then buys. Nature does not have a bank account - all payments go to people - so attempts to fit natural resources into economic Input-Output Analysis must fail. There is furthermore no empirical evidence that the structural change which has indeed taken place away from 'goods' and towards 'services' has led to reduced natural-resource consumption. We must face up to the fact that to reduce our ecological footprints we must earn and spend less.
Yikes, an article claiming that human population size is globally at an unsustainably high level and arguing that the individual right, or freedom, to procreate must be balanced by the responsibility we have towards (1) our own offspring, (2) other animals, and (3) all future human beings. A version of this will soon be a chapter in the Routledge anthology 'Sustainability: Key Issues'. For ecological economics, and for the grassroots environmental movement, this issue has been taboo for over 20 years. On a planet with limited space, resources and beauty, however, we face a trade-off between higher human numbers and less poverty, greater animal welfare, species preservation and future-generation human well-being. Efficiency can do only so much.
'Should degrowth embrace the job guarantee?' Journal of Cleaner Production 38 (2013), pp 56-60.
If there is one argument that trumps arguments for economic degrowth it is that economic shrinkage causes unemployment. There is a straightforward remedy for this, should it occur in spite of free-market forces 'clearing' the labour market at lower wages: the state as employer of last resort. Whoever wants work and can do a job decently, by some definition, should be guaranteed a job. Unemployment has severe psychological and social downsides. Other proposed remedies are indirect and uncertain: government anti-cyclical hiring schemes, deficit spending, or reducing working time per person. There are several real-life job-guarantee programs that seem to work.
'Macro-economic rebound estimation using Granger causality tests', under review.
After an input is rendered more productive by means of new equipment, what changes in total 'rebound' consumption of that input are attributable to the increased productivity of the equipment? So far, so unclear? For example, we know that if overnight all lightbulbs use less electricity per produced lumen, there is some change in overall consumption of electricity. How do we find out the change in this input's consumption caused by the use of the new lightbulbs compared with the old ones? This task is tough or impossible using micro-economic means; 35 years of such research has left us with estimates of total energy-efficiency rebound varying by an order of magnitude. A near consensus has luckily emerged that it is much higher than 50%, and that therefore 'efficiency is not enough'. An approach as yet used too sparingly regresses Total Primary Energy Supply per unit of world GDP on Total Primary Energy Consumption - using world data.