Roamer's column

G8s, G20s, summit after summit in every member capital, violent demonstrations by violent peaceniks, failed resolution after failed resolution trundled out by rich countries, the end of poverty is nigh... year follows year and the aid nowhere near hauling poor countries out of the poverty trap; not least because wealthy countries failed to deliver and not last because many poor countries, some of them mired in corruption, others hamstrung by shambolic administration, are incapable of getting their act together. So here's an interesting revelation courtesy of a report in last Tuesday's Daily Telegraph.

It is estimated that in Britain some 400,000 tons "of perfectly good food" end up in trash bins all over the country. Research conducted by the supermarket chain Morrisons found that the cost of this waste is £610 a year for the typical family (not defined); add food rejected by retailers and restaurants and the total value discarded amounts to £10 billion. Surely, in the rich-poor, sated-Lazarus context, this profligacy cries out for vengeance.

The food in question is packaged or tinned stuff that has remained on the shelves beyond its 'best before date'; it includes 1.3 million unopened yogurt pots (daily), nearly half-a-million ready meals, 5,500 whole chickens, 4.4 million apples, 5.1 million potatoes, 1.6 million bananas. It's an unwholesome thought and I wonder if we in Malta measure up, proportionately, to this level of profligacy. I am a stickler for throwing away any product that has gone past its 'use by date'; others are not, and, it is being suggested that these may have a point.

The gist of this story, however, goes a mite deeper. We buy foods and groceries in excess of what we need and, in the case of Britain, that excess runs to £10 billion, a sum that could feed, or better, create the means to feed, thousands of villages in poor regions for a number of years. If we had a healthy conscience, we would give to some charitable organisation the cost of the food that we allowed to go to waste.

Alternatively, we could exercise greater discipline on our spend; this in turn will promote a supply based on real needs rather than on an artificial demand created by aggressive marketing for goods we often do not really want; in short, we could work towards a saner world.

We could end hunger tomorrow if a way could be found to siphon off to poorer countries what must be something in excess of £100 billion (Britain's discarded food multiplied by 10 is a gross underestimate) currently being thrown away by extravagant societies in the west and, increasingly, similar societies in the east.

Pullicino Orlando strikes again

Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando has switched from presentation mode - his Private Member's Bill for a Divorce Act - to ultimatum? Speaking as though he had just been anointed by his secular minders, he "expect(ed) both parties and society in general (to) engage (themselves) in the debate revolving around this sensitive issue in the coming months and I feel we should be prepared to discuss this Bill in Parliament by January". Or else what? Pullicino Orlando never quite got round to issuing a brisk ultimatum.

But he did indicate, with condescending assertiveness, that colleagues on both sides of the House now have ample time to study his Bill and come up with suggestions.

You have to admire, or detest, the man's conceit; all of a sudden he has metamorphosed into a combination of Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, chief whip of both parties, chairman of the House Committee that organises Parliament's legislative programme and leader of the divorce lobby. I wonder who his mentors are?

The Nationalist Party's reaction was to refer to the statement issued by the parliamentary group ("we're talking"), the Labour Party's was more prim (we don't need prompting") and a reference to Joseph Muscat's "personal stand... that he should first face the electorate with his crystal clear stand on divorce rather than acting by stealth" . And there was the usual nod in the direction of children having to be protected in any legislation (how do you legislate protection against trauma?).

Pullicino Orlando went further; he wanted to see measures guaranteeing that protection and insisted that no one would take the divorce step capriciously. But as he has already touted, with a cure-all 'no-fault divorce' wrapped up in a five-year waiting period and four years of separation within that time-scale, it will be a matter of time before steps are taken capriciously.

To the best of my knowledge and at the time of crafting this piece, leader writers have not exactly rushed into print since Pullicino Orlando lobbed his latest missile into the public square.

This newspaper carried an interview with Fr Peter Serracino Inglott last Sunday and opened up the subject for further discussion; although, as he remarked, it is not so much discussion that is needed but what he called scientific data.

The report on that interview highlighted Serracino Inglott's opinion that divorce should be permitted if it were scientifically proven that society would be better off with it than without it. On this basis, he told Kurt Sansone, even a Catholic politician can vote in favour. The fate of the fly in that ointment lies in its damaged wings.

For where I agree with Fr Peter that we are miserably short on researched data as to "the facts on cohabitation; how many people are cohabiting and for what reason..." - figures and percentages are flung around like arms flailing in the act of drowning - I find it difficult to understand just how it can scientifically be shown (proven is the word used in the report) "that society can be better off with divorce than without it".

Data from across the world shows little evidence to support the theory that society has become more stable as a consequence of divorce being introduced; nor, for example, that the rate of cohabitation decreased after the introduction of divorce, but the need for accurate data remains an imperative.

Let me end, at least for the time being, with a comment on Fr Peter's remark, "I have no doubt that the Archbishop's advisers are perhaps the people who have most scientifically studied this situation and formulated their advice on the grounds that the teaching of Jesus is a general human and sociological rule, which means having divorce will never be better than not having it. I do not agree with this, which is not a doctrinal teaching." He may not, but once he brought Jesus into it, there is a slight chance that Jesus must have known what He was talking about.

I cannot see how he can be so certain about the grounds on which the Archbishop's advisers formulated their advice; it is interesting, however, that he offers the opinion that they are "the people who have studied most scientifically this situation".

In the context of his faith in scientific evidence, it seems logical to me that exchanging views and notes with these people could turn out to be a constructive and positive learning experience for him, for them, and for all of us. In particular, I am curious to know how the scientific evidence re the children-factor will be measured, and against what?

D' ye ken Phil Jones?

Probably not, but you may remember he featured here, none too honourably, in a piece on climate change. If you do, you will recall that the e-mail break-in at the University of Anglia CRU revealed hanky-panky when decisions were taken to delete data that did not confirm, or was at odds with, the CRU's take on global warming.

This fiddled data was taken on board by, of all organisations, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC). When the story broke, Phil Jones did not have enough face to accommodate all the eggs slung at it.

Well, the investigation into what became known as Climategate, found little or nothing wrong with the CRU's wrongdoings and Jones is back at East Anglia as director of research. But the point is not that, although it gives an indication of how well the warmers look after their own; no, the point is that it now looks as if the GW myth remains firmly in the scientific realm and the pressure to go ahead with CO² reduction - at a cost of hundreds of billions of euros - mounts. In Britain alone the bill will be £50 billion a year for the next 40 years! Understandably, Nigel Lawson asked, in the House of Lords, how, "in this age of austerity can this possibly be justified"?

The EU is a great global warming acolyte and regards as inevitable a phenomenon that has been mercilessly slated, in detail, by many who do not subscribe to a global warming religion that has adopted an eco-fascism of its own.

Now it seems that another -gate is being opened, Amazongate, highlighting yet again how the IPCC accepts reports that, it is later discovered, are not based on peer-reviewed science. This ought surely to wake countries up and persuade them to question premises that are validly challenged, or at least highly suspect, and which, if translated into financial commitments, promise to make the South Sea Bubble and the oil-spill in the Gulf of Mexico mere blips on the financial radar.

It is not strange that when Man concludes he knows pretty well everything, you end up with replacements like global warming based on scientific sleights of mind and a trinity of eco-fascism, eco-fanaticism and an eco-faultline stretching from East Anglia to the UN, westwards all the way back to East Anglia.

We are in the presence of what critics of global warming regard as the greatest scam in history and our governments are being asked, made, to sign off billions of euros in a scheme that beggars belief and will beggar taxpayers.