Financial and business news and articles
Posts tagged Environment
Can I buy underwear and be green?
Mar 14th
Say pants to the pesticides used in manufacturing cotton!
You might be doubtful that your choice of briefs can be a catalyst for global change, but consider the statistics. The UK underwear market was valued at £4.1bn in 2009. Most of that money is spent on multinational-produced pants. Some are constructed from a mixture of oil-based synthetics, including nylon (which results in emissions of nitrous oxide, a poisonous greenhouse gas).
Received wisdom tells us that cotton, the main underwear fibre, is the type of natural material we need in these delicate regions. Received wisdom is wrong. Although cotton covers less than 1% of the earth’s landmass, it soaks up 25% of all pesticides and herbicides. A single pair of cotton pants uses 10ml of pesticides.
In the past year a number of NGOs have got their knickers in a twist about cotton pesticide endosulfan, banned in 62 countries. It is linked to reproductive and developmental damage in animals and humans and is manufactured by pharmaceutical brand Bayer. PantsToPoverty.com, a leader in fairtrade cotton underwear, instigated a “pants amnesty” whereby protestors sent their worst pair of pants to Bayer – which quickly pledged to phase out endosulfan by the end of 2010.
Greenknickers.org offers zero-carbon pants from recycled sources. Whomadeyourpants.co.uk is a workers’ co-operative in Southampton employing women who have been granted asylum but find it difficult to get work. They take knickers seriously (like Alan Greenspan, who has said he looks at sales of men’s underwear to indicate the direction of the economy). Ethical smalls can become a big deal.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Climate change adverts draw mild rebuke from advertising watchdog
Mar 13th
Leaked adjudication largely clears government over campaign that some thought ’scary, inaccurate and too political’
Read the full text of the ASA adjudication
The advertising watchdog has mildly rebuked the government over the phrasing of a claim in two advertisements on the danger of climate change, while dismissing the rest of the complaints against the controversial television and newspaper campaign.
The campaign, run by the Department of Environment and Climate Change last winter, brought in 939 complaints. Various groups said the adverts were political, too scary, and factually misleading.
The vast majority of these complaints have now been dismissed by the authority.
The Advertising Standards Authority’s only criticism was that a claim that “flooding, heat waves and storms will become more frequent and intense” should have be phrased more tentatively.
The environment secretary, Ed Miliband, said the authority had “comprehensively vindicated” the accuracy of the department’s TV advert and had rebuffed those who attempted to use the advertising standards process to question the reality of man-made climate change.
“Science tells us it is more than 90% likely there will be more extreme weather events if we don’t act.
“In any future campaign, as requested by the ASA, we will make clear the nature of this prediction.”
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Love thy neighbour – pool your energy bills, says Labour
Mar 12th
General election manifesto to encourage creation of community co-ops for getting good deals on insulation and solar panels
Home owners will be encouraged to club together to negotiate discounts from their energy bills under plans to be put forward in Labour’s general election manifesto.
Such community energy co-operatives could also be used to get good deals on insulatiing properties and renewable energy devices such as solar panels or wind turbines.
Labour will not pledge money for the idea, but will offer to set up an advisory service to support groups. No target will be set, but a Labour source said there could eventually be “several thousand” such projects. In the US there are 900 similar schemes involving 42m people.
Ed Miliband, the climate secretary, said: “One of the most exciting things happening in the energy field at the moment is the formation of energy co-ops – local people banding together to get cheaper energy bills by buying electricity in bulk and discounts on energy efficiency measures such as home insulation.
“The government has already provided funding for some of these groups through our Low Carbon Communities Challenge Fund. But now I want Labour’s manifesto to commit to establishing a support service so that more energy co-ops can be formed and more people can benefit from their services.”
Energy co-operatives already exist in the UK, though they are mostly organised to invest in renewable power or mass insulation and share the profits from selling the electricity or energy savings, rather than push for reduced bills. Labour’s idea builds on a report from the Co-operative Party, published last year, which suggested more consumer groups could be set up to emulate the success of those in US and Europe. One scheme in Belgium has about 15,000 members.
Based on overseas schemes, the report estimates consumers could save up to 10% – or about £100 a year – on their annual bills by using “collective power” to negotiate better deals with suppliers or direct with generators.
Those groups could then club together to pay for insulation, and following that build combined heat and power units, for example burning biomass, or put up renewable energy such as solar panels on roofs or even commercial wind turbines. These could in turn provide clean energy and possible generate profit from selling surplus electricity back to the National Grid, said Michael Stephenson, the party’s general secretary.
“Firstly you can save even more money – the more control you have, obviously the more money you can save,” said Stephenson. “If you’re saving carbon, you’re saving energy which means you’re saving money off your bills. [But] a lot of reasons why local communities are working to get this off the ground is because they want to tackle climate change as well.
“We can see this as a potentially massive player in the energy market.”
As well as the obvious appeal of lower energy bills – especially with Ofgem warning bills could rise 25% by 2020 – and pressure from most rival parties including the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to announce clear policies on the environment, Labour is understood to be attracted to the benefits of co-operatives in improving community links.
However the lack of any new funds to support the scheme will raise concerns that many community groups will not be able to afford the up-front cost of investing in efficiency or renewable power. There will also be questions about whether power companies will pass on the price cuts to the new groups, in the form of higher bills to other customers.
Stephenson said experience in the banking sector suggested they would not: in countries with a strong mutual (customer-owned) banking sector all banks tended to make lower profits out of their retail customers, said Stephenson. “It tends to have a civilizing influence on the market, rather than driving people the other way,” he added.
Simon Roberts of the Centre for Sustainable Energy charity, which oversees a network of community energy groups in Somerset, said co-operatives would need advice on which technology to use in their area, likely costs, procurement and how to develop the structure of the organisation, especially if they needed to employ staff later to manage projects.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Make a handmade belt for a spring coat
Mar 12th
Can’t afford a new spring coat? Bring your old one up to date with a handmade belt and matching buttons, says Sally Cameron Griffiths
Despite the imminent arrival of spring, winter still seems to be with us. But that’s no excuse to put off preparing your spring coat.
Belted trenchcoats are everywhere this season. And it makes sense, given their ability to keep you dry in a rain shower and look smart too. Contrast trim is also very fashionable.
So what can you do if you already own a spring coat, don’t want to buy a new one, but want to put a bit of this year’s fashion into your old one?
A really easy way to add a bit of glamour to your trench is to make a new belt. Why not try our fabric covered button tutorial, too? Then you can customise your coat with a matching belt and buttons.
What will it cost?
A few pounds, depending on the cost of the material.
What do you need?
Old spring coat
Material
Sewing machine, needle and thread or Sewfree
Ruler
Tailor’s chalk
Belt buckle, such as this black one or this tortoiseshell one (optional)
What to do
1. Work out the width and length for the belt. Use a ruler and tailor’s chalk to mark this out on the material. Consider giving the belt angular ends, or adding a buckle.
2. Cut out the material, leaving a 1cm seam allowance on each side.
3. Pin the belt with the right sides together and your markings on show. Stitch the belt together or use Sewfree.
4. To add a buckle, pull one end of the belt around a buckle and stitch it in place.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Guardian Daily podcast: Transport revolution as 250mph trains to run between London and Birmingham
Mar 12th
Transport secretary Lord Adonis has published £30bn plans for a 250mph rail link between London and Birmingham. The proposals, which would revolutionise Britain’s rail network, are subject to parliamentary approval and public consultation. Even after that, work won’t begin on the route until 2017, with the first stage expected to take 10 years to complete. After that, the government intends to extend the high speed rail network to northern England and Scotland.
Peter Walker hears the views of the people of Wendover in the Chilterns, an area of outstanding natural beauty which the new rail route would pass through.
Transport historian Christian Wolmar says the key question is whether the high speed rail plans would increase capacity.
Guardian columnist Julian Glover says the plan will bring economic benefits to the whole country, while Liberal Democrat transport spokesman Norman Baker believes the consultation process will allow members of the public to be heard, and for their views to be given due consideration.
Industries hoarding greenhouse gas emission permits
Mar 11th
Saved permits can be used to meet future targets to cut emissions without reducing pollution
Companies across Europe are hoarding permits to produce greenhouse gas emissions worth hundreds of millions of pounds, the Guardian can reveal.
The surplus credits have been amassed from over-allocation of permits to pollute from the European emissions trading scheme, and by buying cheap credits from carbon-cutting projects in developing countries and holding on to their more expensive official EU allowances.
The saved permits can be used to meet future targets to cut the greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming and climate change without actually reducing pollution, or sold for a profit in the future.
Campaigners for tougher emissions reductions said the saved-up allowances discredited the argument of some industries that much deeper cuts in future would be “fatal” because they could no longer afford to compete against rivals outside the EU.
However, companies involved said the banked credits would help them pay to develop new emission-cutting technology, and to meet emissions targets until that became widely available.
Industry also warned it faced “death by a thousand cuts” as a result of the next phase of the scheme, from 2013 and 2020, and other costly environmental legislation planned by government. Business leaders accused the government of being prepared to sacrifice industry to enable other sectors such as aviation to keep polluting and meet the UK’s carbon budgets.
One steelmaker told the Guardian: “Officials see us as acceptable collateral in the fight against climate change. If we don’t make anything in this country any more, it means people could still fly to Tenerife once a year and the UK will keep within the carbon budget.”
He said meeting targets would require vast amounts of steel to build windfarms, nuclear reactors and electric cars. This would have to be imported from more-polluting steelmakers outside Europe if the industry disappeared in the UK.
The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), the centrepiece of the EU’s pledge to cut greenhouse gases, has already been criticised for giving many companies allowances to emit more emissions than they need, leaving little incentive to reduce pollution, and for lax regulation.
The latest concern about “banking” credits involves companies also buying cheap allowances from “offset” schemes which reduce emissions in other countries, often China and India, and using these to cover their emissions while keeping their official allowances – which are worth more because projects in other countries could in future be banned.
Analysis for the Guardian by campaign group Sandbag of the figures for 2008, the most recent available, looked at the extra allowances accrued by four big sectors: iron and steel, coke ovens, metal ore processing, and cement, which together have 800 installations covered by the trading scheme, and include big names like ArcelorMittal, Thyssenkrupp, Corus, Holcim and Cemex.
Sandbag calculated the four sectors received permits to emit 66m tonnes more carbon dioxide than they needed in 2008, partly because predicted growth did not happen and partly because of the recession towards the end of the year. In addition they bought cheap offsets for a further 18m tonnes plus, which would then free up more EU allowances. In total the surplus allowances would have been worth nearly €1.2bn (£1.1bn) in 2008, or just over €1.1bn at today’s closing price of €12.99. Based on the forecast average price of €30 a tonne for the third phase of the ETS from 2013-2016 by analysts Point Carbon they would be worth more than double that in future.
If the companies stockpiled over-allocated surpluses for the whole of this phase of the ETS, from 2008-2012 they could be worth as much as €3.2bn at today’s prices, said Sandbag. Any more credits released by buying offsets would be on top of that.
“If they [companies] want cashflow, which in the current climate they may, then they’ll cash in the allowances,” said Bryony Worthington, Sandbag’s founder and director. “But if they are thinking long-term then they’ll be thinking ‘I should probably hold on to them and insulate myself for the future’.”
ArcelorMittal, the world’s biggest steel producer, has pledged to use profits to invest in future energy savings to reduce pollution, but there were no guarantees they or any other company would have to do this, said Worthington. “How do we police it, they could be using it for dividends or anything,” she added.
Ian Rodgers, director of UK Steel, said: “The climate change agenda won’t affect the amount of steel consumed, but it will determine where it’s produced.”
According to industry estimates, the third phase could cost heavy industry – including steelmakers such as Corus, the chemicals industry and the ceramics industry – €1bn a year.
Sandbag will tomorrow publish in-depth analysis for 2008, including the biggest buyers of offsets from developing countries, and a map linking every offset scheme with their European customers.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Fraudster who conned supermarkets with free range scam jailed
Mar 11th
Sainsbury’s and Tesco among stores caught out by wholesaler who passed off battery produce as organic
For those who made the conscious decision to spend more on free range or organic eggs, it was worth paying a premium to know the hens that laid them had been kept in ethical conditions.
But those people who ended up paying over the odds for Keith Owen’s eggs may feel a little less warm inside after it emerged the 44-year-old egg wholesaler had scammed all the major supermarkets and numerous small shops by passing off about 100m battery farmed eggs as free range or organic.
Owen, a married father-of-two from Bromsgrove in Worcestershire, was jailed for three years today and forced to surrender the £3m profit he had made by “dishonestly and systematically” mis-describing eggs over a two-year period. The fraud abused “well-intentioned public trust” by scamming innocent customers who had paid extra to ensure better animal welfare, Worcester crown court heard.
Defra, which brought the prosecution, said it was the biggest case of its kind it had ever investigated.
Owen ran Heart of England Eggs Unlimited, an egg-packing business that supplied bigger packing companies, which, in turn, provided the vast majority of eggs to the well-known supermarkets, including Sainsbury’s, Morrisons and Tesco, as well as smaller retailers.
Last week he pleaded guilty to three charges of fraudulent accounting which involved him altering records to disguise the fact he was buying eggs laid by caged hens and selling them for a vast profit after “mis-describing” them in paperwork.
His barrister, John Kelsey-Fry QC, suggested his client was not alone in creating what he described as “mischief” in the egg industry.
“It’s not the case that all those to whom Mr Owen supplied eggs were concerned to ensure the provenance of the eggs was as described,” said Kelsey-Fry, adding it would be “inappropriate” to elaborate.
Passing sentence, the judge said Owen had made very substantial profits at the expense of “real-life victims” who believed they were buying premium eggs.
Describing Owen as the firm’s guiding mind, the judge told the managing director: “Imprisonment there must be, because the offences are plainly so serious that only a sentence of imprisonment will suffice. This was all a carefully planned and executed fraud by false accounting. By greed, you have corrupted and destroyed the once-legitimate business which you have known all your life.”
At the time of the fraud, between 2004 and 2006, farmers could expect a price of about 90p for a dozen organic eggs, 70p for free range and 35p for cage eggs. As a “middle man” wholesaler, Owen would normally make a few pence profit per dozen. But by passing off cage eggs as free range, he could make an extra 35p for every 12 eggs he sold. In a market where demand outstripped supply, he seized the opportunity to make a lot of money.
Richard Jones, a Defra official who investigated the case, said today that Owen was such a significant player in the free range egg market that after he closed down his business two years ago, a number of supermarkets, including Somerfield, had to start sourcing free range eggs from abroad.
The court heard that Owen did not only buy in cheap battery hen eggs in order to dupe customers further down the line, he also bought in huge quantities of so-called “industrial eggs”. These do not meet the quality requirements for sale to the public; instead they can be used only in processed foods once liquefied.
Murmurings began circulating in the egg industry in 2004 that there were vastly more British free range and organic eggs being sold in shops than could ever possibly be laid in UK farms.
At the same time, investigators from the Egg Marketing Inspectorate (EMI) noticed during routine checks that eggs coming from Heart of England were not at all they were purported to be. Because all eggs look the same to the naked eye, the law requires that each egg is stamped with a unique number indicating where, and in what conditions, it was laid. Paperwork indicating origin and type must accompany the eggs all along the supply chain.
But when inspectors checked a selection of Owen’s allegedly free range eggs using a strong ultraviolet light, the shells bore wire marks – a tell-tale sign that they had been laid not on a bed of straw, or even artificial turf, as farming regulations stipulate, but in a metal cage.
There were also complaints from lorry drivers who arrived at Owen’s farms to drop off consignments of caged eggs and then pick up free range or organic eggs. A number of drivers reported to their trade union that they were made to wait hours to pick up their deliveries and suspected the eggs they delivered were being relabelled and sold back to them that day.
All of Owen’s major contracts were to supply British eggs, bearing the British Lion hallmark. But investigators from Defra discovered that he was regularly buying eggs from the continent and passing them off as homegrown.
He used another of his companies, Owens Eggs, to disguise the accounting fraud. Owens Eggs was a legitimate business selling organic eggs laid in a barn on the same site as the Heart of England business. He laundered money by selling organic eggs from Owens Eggs to Heart of England at a hugely inflated price – £10-£40 a dozen at a time when others were selling a dozen for no more than £1.
Investigators found Owen had not only falsified records with real suppliers but also invented firms that had supposedly provided him with premium eggs. He was banned from being a company director for seven years.
A Sainsbury’s spokesman said: “We have the highest standards of quality for all our products, and the eggs we sell are either Woodland eggs or Lion Mark eggs from non-caged flocks. So we were naturally very angry and concerned to learn that we and other retailers were the victims of this fraud.
“We purchased the eggs from a long-term supplier in good faith and it is important to note that at no point did we have any contact with Mr Owen or Heart of England Unlimited.”
The British Free Range Egg Producers Association said: “As a result of this case, the British Egg Industry Council with the ‘Lion’, have introduced a raft of measures, one of which is the stamping of all eggs since January 2010. Consumers can therefore now be reassured that eggs cannot be tampered with as in this case.”
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Egg boss jailed for ‘free range’ fraud
Mar 11th
• Supermarket customers duped in two-year, £3m scam
• Lawyer claims client is far from industry’s only bad egg
A Midlands businessman was jailed for three years today after admitting making a fortune by fraudulently passing off battery farm eggs as free range or organic.
Around 100m mislabelled eggs sold by Keith Owen ended up on the shelves of supermarkets including Sainsbury’s and Tesco. That the fraud was able to carry on for two years while he made a £3m profit raises questions for the food industry about the provenance of goods.
Owen, 44, from Bromsgrove, in Worcestershire, ran Heart of England Eggs Unlimited, which supplied eggs to major packing companies that in turn supplied them to supermarkets and smaller retailers.
He pleaded guilty at Worcester crown court to three charges of fraudulent accounting, relating to altering his records to disguise the fact he was buying in eggs laid by caged hens and selling them on for a profit after relabelling or “misdescribing” them in paperwork.
Prosecutors said Owen had “dishonestly and systematically passed off millions of battery farm eggs as free range/organic eggs”.
Amanda Pinto QC said: “The victims of Keith Owen’s false accounting were not only the direct customers of Heart of England, but also the public, as well as the legitimate egg producers.
“The ultimate customer, a member of the public buying these eggs, would have received inferior eggs – sometimes even eggs not fit for sale to the public – or eggs produced by hens kept without the stringent welfare schemes from which they were said to benefit.”
Owen’s barrister, John Kelsey-Fry QC, suggested his client was far from the only one creating what he described as “mischief” in the egg industry.
“It’s not the case that all those who Mr Owen supplied eggs were concerned to ensure that the provenance of the eggs was as described,” he said, adding it would be “inappropriate” to elaborate.
At the time of Owen’s fraud, between 2004 and 2006, farmers could expect to receive a price of around 90p per dozen for organic eggs, 70p for free range and 35p for cage eggs. As a “middleman” wholesaler, Owen would normally make a few pence profit per dozen, but by passing off cage eggs as free range he could make an extra 35p profit for every 12 eggs he sold.
The court heard that Owen not only bought in cheap battery hen eggs, he also bought in huge quantities of so-called “industrial eggs”. These do not meet the quality requirements for sale to the public, and instead are meant to be used only in processed foods.
The fraud came to light in 2004 when allegations began circulating in the egg industry that there were vastly more British free range and organic eggs being sold in shops than could ever possibly be laid in UK farms. At the same time, investigators from the Egg Marketing Inspectorate noticed during routine checks that eggs coming from Heart of England were not at all what they purported to be.
Because all eggs look the same to the naked eye, the law requires that each egg is stamped with a unique number indicating where the egg was laid and in what conditions. Paperwork must accompany eggs transported through the supply chain to indicate their origin and type.
When inspectors checked a selection of Owen’s allegedly free range eggs using ultraviolet light, the shells bore telltale wire marks – a sure sign that they had been laid not on a bed of straw or even Astroturf, as farming regulations stipulate, but in a metal cage.
There were also complaints from lorry drivers who arrived at Owen’s farms to drop off consignments of caged eggs and then to pick up free range or organic eggs. A number of drivers reported to their trade union that they were made to wait hours to pick up their deliveries and suspected that the same eggs they had delivered were being relabelled and then sold back to them the same day.
All of Owen’s major contracts were to supply British eggs bearing the British Lion hallmark. But investigators from the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs discovered that he was regularly buying eggs from the continent and passing them off as home-grown.
He used another of his companies, Owens Eggs, to disguise the accounting fraud. Owens Eggs was a legitimate business selling organic eggs laid in a barn, on the same site as the Heart of England egg-packing business. Owen tried to mask the fraud by selling organic eggs from Owens Eggs to Heart of England at an extremely inflated price – £10-£40 per dozen at a time when other producers were selling a dozen for no more than £1.
Owen agreed under a confiscation order to surrender £3m of the profit he made from selling the misdescribed eggs, and will not be allowed to be a company director for seven years.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Does switching off an escalator at Victoria station really save energy?
Mar 11th
His email describes an experience he had yesterday evening:
At Victoria Station tonight at 8.00pm London Underground closed down one of the up escalators from Victoria Line to the main concourse. They put up a sign saying it was “switched off to save energy”. It goes on to say that this would happen during quieter times of the day as a way of saving energy. But this happened at 8.00pm on a weekday night when trains were still pretty full, which meant there was a queue of people trying to get up one escalator, forcing others to walk up a non-moving escalator. See Picture.
I was sceptical that any saving made would be greater than the cost of the inconvenience to Tube users (especially as there are lots of travellers with suitcases going to Gatwick airport) plus the unintended side affect of some travellers deciding to use cars or other more polluting forms of transport than Tube travel.
Interesting. The reader asks?
How much money is saved per hour turning off the escalators? My original guess that it would need to be thousands of pounds per hour, to outweigh the potential dis-benefits of the above.
Helpfully the TFL website tells us how much per year an escalator costs to run. There is a report from 2009 which states: “The amount of electricity used by an escalator varies depending on how long it is and how far it rises but as a guide will cost in the region of between £7,000 and £12,000 each year.”
This is from page 33 of the London Underground Carbon Footprint report 2008, published in 2009. My reader continues:
I was surprised by these low figures. If we assume that the escalator at Victoria station is one of the more expensive ones, the hourly cost is less than £2.00 per hour: £12,000 divided by 365 days divided by 18 hours per day.
£1.83, to be exact. Well, that’s what my calculator says.
In July 2009 Boris Johnson said about the £695million plan to improve the station: “This key upgrade will transform the experience for those using the station – making life easier and more convenient.” But TfL’s own figures suggest it doesn’t make economic or environmental sense to turn off escalators at 8.00pm in busy stations like Victoria.
I should disclose two things about this reader: one, I know him to be a very competent person; two, he is a Labour Party member. That done, I’ll be asking TfL if they think he has a point.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Response: Scientists should stop deceiving us
Mar 12th
Posted by Nicholas Maxwell in Politics
No comments
In holding that the aim of science is truth alone, they misrepresent its real aims
George Monbiot is surely right to bemoan the profoundly unsatisfactory state of affairs that exists between science and the public (With complex science, we must take much on trust. The trouble is we can’t, 9 March).
Many members of the public instinctively and irrationally distrust, even fear, science. Thus, for climate sceptics, “No level of evidence can shake the growing belief that climate science is a giant conspiracy codded up by boffins and governments to tax and control us”. And scientists don’t help by producing specialised “gobbledegook” so incomprehensible that even scientists “studying neighbouring subjects within the same discipline can no longer understand each other”.
The situation might be helped if scientists stopped deceiving us, and themselves, about the nature of science itself, and adopted a more truthful view. At present most of them take for granted the view that the intellectual aim of science is to acquire knowledge of truth, the basic method being to assess, impartially, claims to knowledge with respect to evidence – nothing being accepted permanently as a part of scientific knowledge independently of evidence. But this is nonsense. Physics only ever accepts theories that are unified – that attribute the same laws to all the phenomena to which the theory in question applies – even though many empirically more successful disunified rivals can always be concocted.
This means that physics persistently accepts a substantial thesis about the universe independent of evidence: there is some kind of underlying unity in nature, to the extent at least that all seriously disunified theories are false. This substantial, influential and highly problematic assumption needs to be acknowledged within science, so that it can be criticised and, we may hope, improved. The aim of science is not truth per se, but rather truth presupposed to be unified, or explanatory.
And it goes further. The aim of seeking explanatory truth is a special case of the more general aim of seeking truth that is, in some way or other, important or of value. Values, of one kind or another, are inherent in the aims of science. But values are, if anything, even more problematic than untestable assumptions concerning an underlying unity in nature. Values implicit in the aims of science need to be acknowledged, so that they can be criticised and, we may hope, improved.
Finally, knowledge of valuable truth is sought so that it may be used by people, ideally to enhance the quality of human life. There is a humanitarian or political dimension. But this, again, needs to be critically assessed and, we may hope, improved.
In short, in holding that the intellectual aim of science is truth alone, scientists seriously misrepresent its real, problematic aims, and thus prevent urgently needed critical assessment by scientists and non-scientists alike. More honesty about the nature of science might improve science, and public attitudes towards it – and might even encourage scientists to produce less gobbledegook.