Dear Editor,
I read the article by James Vincent (19th May) about the longitude prize and feel that, with four of the topics mentioned, "modest living" rather than hi-tec would be a far better path to take. Let's look at these four:
1.) Yes, water is in short supply in many parts of the world but western markets demand many "water-dependent" crops (e.g. cut-flowers, soft-fruit, etc.) which rob local people of their supplies. So stopping this would be a quick, easy and effective first step. Another reason for water-shortages is the disappearance of glaciers (which act as reservoirs in many parts of the world). Glaciers melt because the climate is warming but we in the West insist on clinging on to our fossil-fuel intensive life-styles.
2.) Food is also a problem but, here too, western markets and western "investment operations" demand land for cash crops and exports, for bio-fuel and carbon-offset and for cattle-feed. On top of this, many of the hi-tec solutions trumpeted in the past (e.g. intensive use of pesticides and fertilizers) supply high yields for a few years but then leave the soil barren and the farmer bankrupt. Here restraint (on the part of the West) and local empowerment would be far better than technological "fixes".
3.) Resistance to antibiotics is a serious and frightening problem but let's remember that since the 1950's we have been routinely feeding these precious drugs to animals in intensive farming operations. So we shouldn't be surprised that resistance has developed and one main plank of the solution should be that animals only ever receive these drugs under veterinary supervision.
4.) Low-carbon flight? Excuse me but this is simply pie-in-the-sky indulgence! Surely we should simply fly less? Indeed, if a miracle fuel were to be discovered, then wouldn't it be better to use it to light homes and hospitals rather than for flying half-way round the planet simply to lie on a beach?
However, the solutions I mention here are probably irrelevant because the real agenda is not to "do the right thing" but rather to keep consumers and the public happy and to turn a big profit. So I am sure that the "Longitude Prize" will not go to "common sense" but rather to some high-budget technology which carries a lot of prestige and which unfortunately, at the end of the day, probably also carries a sting in the tail.
Regards
