Oxford University has been involved in the completion of a “zero-emissions” sports car.
The car, which has a top speed of nearly 100mph, is set to be unveiled at the Geneva motor show. It is hydrogen powered and produces little noise and only water from its exhaust.
The light-weight hydrogen fuel cells which power the car were developed by UK firm Qinetiq. The project to build the “Life car” was in part funded by the UK government, has cost £1.9m and has taken nearly three years. It has a range of about 250 miles (400km) and has a top speed of around 90mph (145km/h).
However, some critics have pointed out that there are a number of difficulties with hydrogen–powered cars. Producing hydrogen by splitting water uses a large amount of electricity, thus the environmental benefits are not immediately obvious. Also there is little infrastructure for refuelling at present.
As well as Oxford University, a number of other businesses and universities have been involved in the project. Other collaborators on the project were RiverSimple, Cranfield University and Linde AG. The car will be on display at the Geneva Motor Show in Switzerland between 6 and 16 March.
Zero-emissions sports car developed
Liveblogging: Texas and Ohio returns
Up next we have Wyoming (on Saturday), and Mississippi (next Tuesday) where Obama is expected to win. The big challenge ahead is quite a way off – Pennsylvania on April 22nd. In the intervening period both campaigns are going to have to find a way to build some fresh momentum. Expect the recent negative attacks from the Clinton side to continue – they’ve proved reasonably successful – while Obama will have to tread a fine line as a campaign that has tended to shy away from more negative tactics. As this race continues I’ll be continuing to blog about the campaigns so stay right here with Cherwell online for the latest analysis.
02:52:33 – We’re over two hours in and it now looks like Clinton will win Ohio though the size of the win is currently anyone’s guess. Texas meanwhile looks very, very tight. With 5% in Obama still has a 7-point lead. However this is skewed by early voting so we don’t yet know how closely this ties to the final results. In Ohio, with 21% or results in, Hillary leads by 20 points but the networks are yet to call it in her favour, suggesting that it is closer than it looks. This is partly the result of the rural areas which heavily favour Clinton tending to report earlier than urban areas. The major cities are yet to return any results. A CNN exit poll gave Hillary the narrowest of victories (3%) in both Texas and Ohio.
As McCain takes to the podium I’m heading to bed but I’ll be back in the morning to roundup the rest of tonight’s action and to reflect on the final tallies.
02:36:45 – Obama has a 7-point lead with 4% reporting in Texas. With 14% of results in Clinton has a surprisingly large 22-point lead.
02:27:00 – Rhode Island has been called for Hillary Clinton by MSNBC. She was expected to win the New England state but the relatively small margin of victory may be some cause for concern.
02:19:17 – Huckabee is speaking. With an extended baseball metaphor he says he tried his hardest; he ‘gave it his best.’ Huckabee confirms he has made a concession call to McCain and calls for party unity.
02:09:18 – Clinton is leading in Ohio 2:1 with less than 1% reporting. A bias in the early reporting of rural vs. urban areas means that Clinton will do better early on than when the final results are in.
02:05:36 – With no confirmed winners in Texas or Ohio yet The Washington Post has an interesting article which suggests that 2/3rds of Democrats would support the continuation of Hillary’s bid if she wins one of the states. Should she lose both only 49% would support a continuation.
02:00:57 – Polls shut everywhere. CNN projects McCain will win Rhode Island, providing enough delegates to secure the GOP nomination. No call for Hillary yet in Rhode Island.
01:57:30 – Lots of result predictions are coming in on the email. If any of you want to put your money where your mouth is George is back with the latest odds. Hillary is 1-14 to win Ohio and is also favourite in Rhode Island. Obama meanwhile is ‘clear favourite’ in Texas at 2-9 as well as in Vermont. No surprise with the latter in each case but the strength with which they are respectively favoured in Ohio and Texas is surprising.
01:53:24 – According to the blogosphere (yes, I stole that word. And it’s still horrible) Huckabee will be waving goodbye to the campaign in the next half hour or so with a concession speech and an endorsement of John McCain. Perhaps McCain won’t need to reach 1,191 delegates to wrap up the nomination for certain tonight after all.
01:48:51 – George asks: "Does Barack stand a chance in Ohio?" It’s a good question but at this point, with some precincts still open after the extension, it really is too early to call. I would speculate however that Hillary is going to win Ohio by a relatively small margin (five points max), which compared to the 20-point lead she held a few weeks ago isn’t great, but will certainly be enough for her to claim victory. Clinton will say she has halted Barack’s momentum and will live to fight another day. When it gets down to delegate counts in the long run however a mere five-point lead may prove much more damaging. George also reports that on Betfair right now Obama is 5-1 to win Ohio.
01:41:58 – On the Fox News web stream the pundits are addressing the question of the superdelegates. This is an issue which was very prominent across the networks a few weeks ago, but which has since died down. Many suggested that Hillary would look to use the superdelegates to win the nomination. However, with most voters making it clear in polling data that they feel the superdelegates should back the winner of the primaries and caucuses it looks less and less likely that this will be a viable strategy should it become necessary. It is simply viewed as undemocratic.
01:34:13 – Lots more speculation that the Democrat fight is going to continue "to Pennsylvania and North Carolina" according to Fox News. It does seem increasingly likely that – though the polls are still open in Texas – Ohio and Texas will be reasonably close. If that happens Obama won’t be able to knock out Hillary tonight and Hillary will be able to claim ‘victory,’ sufficient at least to keep her fighting into April. The New York Times certainly thinks Hillary is going to fight on; she’s saying she’s ‘just warming up.’
01:25:51 – Very little happening at the moment and Fox News have taken to showing off their interactive tv wall in an effort to keep the viewers excited. Their 24-style countdown clock to 2am (9ET – polls closing time) is quite cool though. Obama leads in Texas 58% to 41% with over 700,000 votes in from Texas but nothing is being called as not all of the precincts in the Lone Star state are closed.
01:10:17 – Exit polls from Texas c/o Fox News: Those who made their decisions in the last 3 days overwhelmingly went for Hillary Clinton. This perhaps in response to the already famous red phone ad which plays on terror fears and the consistent perception from voters that Hillary Clinton is more experienced and better equipped to deal with national security. Barack tried to mount a response, pointing particularly to his opposition to the Iraq war as proof of his better judgment. If this polling data holds up it would appear that this approach hasn’t worked.
Some precincts will stay open in the city of Cleveland until 2am. No results can be run until all the polls are closed so consider the final Ohio result to be pushed back another hour.
01:06:33 – This is definitely going to be a long night now so settle in. The networks are reporting that the secretary of state has asked for polls to remain open in one Ohio county until 2am. No clear answers for a while then, but Fox News have got Karl Rove (strategy guru to President Bush) waxing lyrical and O’Reilly’s up soon so what’s not to like?
01:02:05 – All killer no filler right here so as we wait for some actual results to come in it’s time to get you lot involved. This story , which suggests that Hillary’s campaign doctored footage of Barack to make him appear blacker, is presented for your viewing pleasure courtesy of everyone’s favourite Isis editor, while reader Mohsin Khan offers his two cents. He says, "I reckon Obama’s not going to win in either Texas or Ohio tonight. A shame, as two days ago I would have him given him Texas nicely. We’ll see." Keep the comments coming.
00:47:20 – A word on the Texas voting format: Texas is highly unusual in that it holds both a primary and a caucus with voters able to participate in both. It is only the results of the primary which are expected this evening. The caucuses, worth 64 of the 193 pledged Texan delegates, will not report this evening. Of course, Obama has consistently performed much better than Hillary in caucuses since Iowa so expect him to do slightly better in delegates than tonight’s results suggest in the long run.
Meanwhile, Fox News are covering a story that the Obama campaign is applying right now to a Federal Judge for some of the polls in Ohio to be kept open longer over suggestions that in some places ballots ran out.
And for those who are interested this website is providing exit poll data as it comes in.
00:42:17 – Polls close in Texas and Rhode Island at 2am for those asking. If you want to get in touch leave a comment or click on my name to send an email.
00:38:33 – The polls in Vermont closed thirty-eight minutes ago and all the major networks called it for Barack immediately as expected. The margin however is very large: 30 points plus. Polls in Ohio have now closed but don’t expect results too soon. There are still paper ballots in some parts of the state and counting will be very slow. Meanwhile Ohio and Vermont have been called for McCain.
00:25:24 – Will she stay or will she go?
So here’s the deal with what’s at stake today for the Democrats. 4 states will be voting: Vermont (15 pledged delegates, 8 unpledged), Rhode Island (21, 11), Texas (193, 35) and Ohio (141,20). In the most recent polls Barack and Hillary have been statistically tied in Texas, with Hillary slightly ahead in Ohio. Obama is expected to win Vermont, while Rhode Island seems wrapped up for Hillary.
Bill Clinton said last week that Hillary must win Texas and Ohio if she is to win the nomination but the Clinton campaign has since backed down from this. It’s going to take a Barack sweep in Texas and Ohio to knock Hillary out of the way in the next few days. I was going to lay out all the possible outcomes and what they would mean at this point, but The Guardian have already done it better, so just look at that. While I’m passing on links here’s a great breakdown of the messages and visuals behind the various campaign ads of the 2008 primary season.
For the Republicans John McCain is expected to pick up the vast majority of delegates as the presumptive nominee.
Christ Church win University Challenge
Christ Church have beaten Sheffield in the University Challenge final, which was aired on BBC2 last night.
The final score was 220 points to 170.
Over 200 teams from around the country entered this year's competition, but only 28 were selected to compete in the televised stages.
This is the 14th time an Oxford college has won since the programme began in 1963, compared with 6 wins for Cambridge.
They float in the breeze…
“I am convinced that we can eliminate single-use disposable bags altogether, in favour of long-lasting and more sustainable alternatives”-Prime Minister Brown
Although this sounds quite good, it does pose the question, what, exactly, is a “single-use disposable bag”? By usage, it seems to refer to free plastic bags you get from supermarkets. Many dog owners might dispute the concept that these bags are single use, and I myself quite like them for putting trainers in after a game of football.
I also used a plastic bag to keep the saddle of by bike dry when I had to leave it out in rain. It is, however, an indisputable fact that the majority of plastic bags obtained from the various supermarkets across the world do end up being thrown away once used to take the shopping home. What then is the overall effect of this waste?
Less that 0.03% of all the waste that goes into a landfill comes from plastic bags, so one might be forgiven for asking why this should be such a central element of the Government’s environmentally themed speeches.
I have tried the majority of the alternatives to the plastic bag. So far, I have generally felt that most of them are inadequate. The trusty backpack was used until a packet of Chicken Tikka Massala sauce leaked all over its insides. To this day, almost a year later, the bag still smells of stale curry.
I have bought quite a few of the re-usable green bags, and have found them brilliant for taking glass to the bottle bank, they do however tend to retain the smells of whatever you put into them. Invariably, however, one rarely remembers to bring them shopping and ends up using the oh-so-conveniently positioned disposables, warranting disapproving looks from environmentally-friendly lookers-on.
I find it rather irksome that I should be treated like I have personally poured a 50-gallon drum of DDT into the river Cherwell. The elderly, in particular, tend to chide one about not doing their bit for the environment. That seams rather hypocritical as the amount of CO2 released by them driving to the shop would be worth nearly my volume in shopping bags. That this is missing from their distorted perspective of reality does not seem so surprising.
Going back to the age of fossils, why not offer paper bags instead of plastic ones? Well, for a start plastic bags take 40% less energy to make and release 70% fewer atmospheric emissions, and as only ~5% of the UK’s energy comes from renewable sources, this would have a much greater detrimental effect on the globes atmosphere. They would also create 5 times the volume of waste.
As there is a considerable paucity of composting heaps in household gardens, it seems likely that this waste would end up in the landfills all the same and thereby circumvent the supposed reduction in waste volume. They are also less popular with the consumer due to the propensity for breaking, spilling the shopping all over the path. The only real advantage is that they will decompose in a relatively short period of time.
This being said, I do fully support efforts to reduce the usage of plastic bags for ecological rather than atmospheric reasons. A colossal amount of plastic, especially from plastic bags, find its way to the seas of the world. According the United Nations Environment Programme, there are 46,000 pieces of plastic rubbish per square mile. This is thought to lead to more that a million birds and 100,000 marine animals, such as turtles, dying each year due to eating, or getting entangled in, plastic.
The imposition of a tax of approximately 22 cents upon each plastic bag used in the Republic of Ireland has led to a reduction of almost 90% in the last 5 years. Surely, an imposition of a similar system in the UK would do wonders in reducing the wasteful use of plastic bags. I would be willing to pay 10 pence for each bag, so long as society doesn’t make me a pariah for daring to be forgetful.
by Stephan Elschenbroich
Community radio station back on air
Oxford’s only community radio station is back on air for a month by popular demand.OX4 fm will broadcast 24 hours a day until 28th March after it was granted a restricted service license (RSL) by radio regulator Ofcom. The RSL cost £8,000 but OX4FM’s long-term goal is a 5 year community licence.The station, popular with many Oxford University students, is entirely by volunteers from Cowley, Rose Hill and Blackbird Leys. It features shows such as Ultra Culture” (jungle, break-beat, liquid-funk) and “Cowleyfornia dreaming” (dance, house, rave reggae, soul, and funk rock roll ballads). The station focuses on local artists and producers, especially drum and bass, which has a big following in Oxford.OX4 FM is available on 87.9FM or through the website www.ox4fm.net.
Cherwell24 is not responsible for the content of outside links.
Residents demand Westgate reassessment
Campaign group Oxford Against Westgate Expansion are lobbying the Environment Agency to undertake another flood risk assessment on the Westgate Centre redevelopment plans.
A meeting was held in the town hall earlier this week to debate the proposed redevelopment. Alternative proposals were discussed, possibly including a proportion of affordable housing or a more environmentally friendly refit of the existing shopping centre.
Marketing and community relations manager for Capital Shopping Centres, Simon Ward said, “Throughout the lengthy consultation process prior to the planning application submission, the Westgate Partnership worked closely with both city and county councils, the Environment Agency, transport groups and the local community to ensure the development of a retail-led mixed use regeneration scheme for Oxford which is at the forefront of sustainable design.”
“The scheme is designed to reduce energy requirements through natural ventilation, intelligent lighting controls, solar panels, green roofs and rainwater collection,” he added.
However, campaigners are not convinced. Many believe building an underground car park could reduce flood storage and increase the danger to surrounding roads.
Gillian Turberfield, 76, from Pegasus Way, Oxford, told the Oxford Mail, “I grieve for Oxford because I think this scheme is going to be a disaster.
“The roads won’t be able to cope with the increase in traffic. The people of Oxford have never been asked what they want for the site instead of a big shopping centre.”
More than 70 people attended the meeting. Speaking afterwards, campaigner Jess Worth, 33, said, “We had no idea so many people were against the development – it has spurred the group on to fight even harder to make sure it doesn’t happen.”A second meeting has been arranged at the Town Hall for Thursday March 13.
Varsity Fives-A double report on all the highlights of the day
Report 1: by James Duboff
Last week saw the massive Oxford dynasty descend upon Eton, all guns blazing, raring to go and greet the Cambridge kids. The chiselled Oxford first team dominated their way onto their designated courts and eagerly awaited the arrival of their opponents. Led by the dynamic duo, Peter Kennedy and Andy Erskine, the first team exhibited style and prowess with every stroke, exceeding all their predecessors in the game of the blackguards. They demonstrated their extreme back court superiority, but unfortunately weren’t able to get it off the step often enough, conceding the first match by exceedingly close margins. This arbitrary result was outshone by the first pair winning the post-lash, despite the ‘bridge’s attempts to keep up. The second pair, namely Will Betts and Chris Michaels, fought bravely, but at the last minute, the Cambridge duo tricked their way towards a light blue achievement. The final game for the first’s force was fronted by the phenomenal Duncan Bloor-Young and the ferocious Henry Mostyn. DJ-ABY managed to get up two flair shots in a row off the pepper on the top step in a fearsome and fast-paced fifth set, but the sneaky Tabs penetrated again.The Oxford second team, The Peppers, took the courts by storm. Freddie Krespi joined Ben Samuel who played most proficiently together, bringing a firm 3-1 demolishment upon the Cambridge twosome.
Theo Peterson and Jonny Nelmes annihilated their counterparts with a glorious 3-0 victory for the Oxford pair. It seems PK’s inspired battleplan of attacking the back corners paid dividends. Nelmes’ tuneful devotion to finishing before the Tabs had even got into the swing of it, rumoured to be his favourite tactic, meant they left on a very high note! Peterson shared this rhythm as he volleyed imperiously all game.
Last and by far not the least, the Duboff, J. – Pattenden, H. duo, truly brought sexy back to the Eton courts. Having already won on banterous prestige, they took on the infamous Ralph and his friend. JD + HP were shockingly dislodged by the unexpected force of the Cambridge “bantex” (banter vortex) and as such, had to fight the true underlying battle here in finding new niches and caveats to exploit.
Rosie Scott scored a very impressive 2-0 for the Oxford ladies, joining the ranks of her predecessor and new partner, Juliet Browning, who was glad to have set the standard for the ladies and see it continue with impeccable strength and power. Emma Cernis led new girl Alex Colvin into a brilliant match, which they thoroughly enjoyed. The ladies were triumphant on the whole so they too won another Magnum of Pol for the Oxford elite to share at the legendary dinner later that evening.Ultimately, the Cambridge boys and girls admitted defeat by leaving ridiculously early so they could get back to the ‘bridge before their bedtimes – quoting their captain “we intend to keep our Magnum for our AGM next week”….cute.
Report 2: by Theo Peterson
The Varsity Fives was sponsored this year by Pol Roger, so please excuse a degree of haziness surrounding the details of events. But I have it on good authority that the match definitely did take place. As if the endorsement of a major champagne company were not enough to demonstrate the public-school credentials of the occasion, the whole affair was hosted by Eton. Ironically, Oxford and Cambridge don’t even have enough courts to accommodate their own varsity. How embarrassing. Incidentally, if anyone is still wondering what all this Fives business is actually about…it’s like squash with your hands, alright?
We were fired up, by gosh, and ready to claim victory by bashing the Tabs, or whatever it is kids do nowadays. The loss of our best player (in fact one of the country’s best players) to the real world at the end of last year was certainly a blow, but we had a pretty strong team. But it was Cambridge who scored the first psychological point by turning up en masse as we sat around with our pre-match sandwiches, and shedding their overcoats to reveal gleaming polo-shirts emblazoned with all sorts of logos and badges and whatnot. Stash! Why didn’t we have stash? Their shirts said Cambridge on the back; ours offered nothing. We didn’t even know who we were. Nevertheless, once we had overcome this mild identity crisis and warmed up we were ready to start. Of the six boys’ matches, three were rather close, and three were not so close, although no less hardly fought. The top three pairs formed the Varsity team proper, and in this part of the competition I’m afraid to say we suffered something of a whitewash. But it was only a whitewash on paper.
Peter Kennedy, our valiant captain, and Andrew Erskine played bravely, eventually succumbing to a tricksy Cambridge first pair 0-3. Our second and third pairs held out a while longer, both taking their matches to the full five sets. Will Betts & Chris Michaels on court 2, and Henry Mostyn & Duncan “Nate-Dog” “Big D” “Dr Dunkenstein” Bloor-Young on court 3 provided some thrilling Fives against very evenly matched Cambridge opposition. The latter match was the last to finish, and had garnered quite a crowd by the end. As their opponents closed in on the final points, Our Boys dug deep to stall the onslaught, and when Duncan pulled out two cracking shots up off the buttress in a row it seemed for a moment that they might turn the tide. But sadly exhaustion took hold and despite the fact that one had injured his hand the Cambridge pair romped home.
It was in the second team, the so-called Peppers, that our real success lay. I’m not ashamed to admit that Jonny Nelmes and I were the first to claim victory, despatching with a slightly lacklustre fifth pair within the hour. Things were rather more exciting in the fourth pair match. Freddy Krespi and Ben Samuel went one set down, before remembering what they were playing for and fighting back to take the match 3-1. Only our sixth pair suffered defeat, James Duboff and Hugh Pattenden going down all hands on deck, but that wasn’t enough to deny us the magnum of Pol Roger offered to the winners of each part of the event.
Champagne was similarly forthcoming in the women’s match. Juliet Browning and Rosie Scott destroyed the Cambridge pair 12-2 12-5, although that same pair then went on to beat our women’s second. We still got the magnum though. All in all it was a grand day out, even if we did lose overall, and things were only improved by the lavish dinner that followed, at which we were most certainly victorious.
Wadham Fresher Narrowly Lost Chance to Become Britain’s "MasterChef"
Blues Athlete of the Week: Sam Humphry-Baker
I started playing for the Under 21s in my first year, going on tour before I started Freshers’ Week. Knowing some of the guys before definitely helped me settle in. Hopefully rugby hasn’t defined my Oxford career as much as sports like rowing can do. Although you spend a lot of time with your team mates, I have lots of friends outside rugby. I get involved with college stuff as much as I can and try to avoid being a stereotypical ‘rugger bugger’. I guess you miss out on stuff but it’s worthwhile at the end of the day.
What was it like playing with Joe Roff?
Off the field you wouldn’t think Roffy was one of the greats of the game due to his modest, laid-back demeanour. On the field, though, you can’t help but learn from the way he dominates the game, always seeming to have time on the ball. As a developing player in the same position, it’s obviously an invaluable experience.
Do you think that Blues rugby has been devalued by the decreasing numbers of undergraduates playing for them?
Quite the opposite I think. Having the opportunity to play alongside stronger, more experienced players is what makes the Varsity Match the best amateur game in the rugby calendar. Some of the older guys really bring on the undergraduate players coming up through the ranks, offloading their experience in skills and conditioning etc. Having said that, not making the team can be frustrating, but I think it makes the rugby Blue so much more special if an undergraduate manages to win one.
Who is the best player you’ve played against?
It sounds a bit contrived wheeling out players’ names, but playing in the Michaelmas fixtures you occasionally find yourself up against a big gun, which can be quite nerve racking, but you just play like it’s any other bloke.
Do you hope to play in the Varsity Match this year? Would it be the biggest moment of your rugby career to date?
I’ve got to the stage now where I think I can challenge for a Varsity spot. Every guy who plays for OURFC wants to run out onto Twickenham in front of 40,000 supporters. Let’s just say I wouldn’t say no.
How does the Blues standard compare to other levels of rugby you’ve played in the past?
Coming as a school boy, whatever level you play, there is a massive step up in physicality and aggression which you soon adapt to.
Are you planning on continuing with your rugby after Oxford?
I want to keep my options open, but I have the opportunity to keep playing good rugby and developing as a player.
Do you play any college rugby?
I love playing for college; it’s a hugely intimate team atmosphere. You definitely get a real buzz every time you pull on the jersey. Losing Cuppers final was probably the worst feeling I’ve had on a rugby field.
Do you have any problems balancing your OURFC commitments with your degree?
I often have times when I’m rushing from a tute to the game and don’t get to prepare as well as I should, or when you miss lectures for a game in Wales or something, but I think everyone needs a focus outside their academics otherwise you would go mad.
Does your status as a Blues player get you noticed in Oxford?
I guess so, but to be honest I’m a bit of a space cadet so I wouldn’t know.
Which current famous rugby players would you compare yourself to?
Stirling Mortlock is a bit of a hero, but I wouldn’t begin to compare myself to him.
Are there any current Blues players worth watching out for?
There are a lot of guys coming through, which is exciting to watch, Chris Davies is probably the best fresher forward this club has seen for years, I just hope he doesn’t get sidetracked by all his lady friends.
Who has the best banter on the Blues team?
Nobody springs to mind but Bertie ‘The Banter Vacuum’ Payne…well the name speaks for itself really.
COMMENT: Teetotalism Over Temperance
Drunkenness is unnecessary, morally ambiguous, and often plain repulsive. Not only that, but I think there’s a pretty good case for abstaining from drinking alcohol altogether.
I realise I am hardly taking up a popular stance here but I think this is a sentiment that people of our age are almost too afraid to explore or propagate for fear of being tarnished by the brush of prudishness.
Liberals in the 19th century participated in both the temperance movement and teetotal movement. And yet a movement supporting abstinence from alcohol altogether sounds shocking to most of us today. To say you are teetotaller is often more horrifying than pronouncing yourself as a fructose-intolerant vegan. But is it really so weird?
Imagine a world in which people just didn’t feel the need to consume alcohol at all. Imagine a world in which binge-drinking was unheard of; “drunken mistakes” non-existent and alcoholism a rarity. Imagine a world in which people had fun on a night out without the risk of vomiting, doing something awful, or a looming hangover the next day.
Upon further reflection, it’s not so surprising that liberals strived to free people from (a) the pressures of drinking culture; (b) alcohol companies targeting the poor and (c) the shackles that inevitably strangle the individual’s rationality and morality through alcohol-induced impairment of judgement.
You think you are a free individual when you choose to drink. You are not. In fact, your freedom of choice is significantly distorted by a multiplicity of social pressures. First, we drink because alcohol consumption has been deeply embedded in Western culture. Alcohol is a drug, a dangerous one at that, and yet we are brought up to see its regular usage as a norm.
In fact, it is extremely difficult for us to even envisage a society in which the primary use of alcohol is as an antiseptic. And yet such societies did exist and continue to exist. It has often been argued that if alcohol were discovered today, governments would be loath to allow it to remain legal.
Second, there exists an explicit Drink-To-Have-Fun Myth. This consists of the idea that it is physically impossible to have a good night out without getting tipsy or, as is more often the case, getting completely lashed short of passing out and having your stomach pumped out.
I am walking, talking evidence of the fact that it’s possible to have a fantastic time without touching the substance at all. You may scoff, but I vow that I can chat, joke, laugh and boogie my sober bum off – waking up the next morning without a hangover and with a recollection of the incredible night I’d had – all on apple and mango J20.
Even if my story of alcohol-free raving fails to convince, do you really believe that young people in countries where drinking simply isn’t a cultural norm only rarely have fun? To say that it is impossible to have alcohol-free fun seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
And yet so many of my friends have said to me: “Even if drinking isn’t necessary for having fun it’s still helpful when done in moderation. Chocolate isn’t necessary, but we still eat it because it tastes nice.” But the thing about alcohol is that it necessarily entails a slippery slope.
When you drink, you are not automatically under one of two categories: ‘the person who has drunk in moderation’ and ‘the person who is drunk’. In fact there often exists a slimy, grey area between the two states; an area that is difficult to identify precisely because it is different for different people. Drunkenness is a question of degree – the more you drink the further away you move on this scale from the point of soberness.
The simple fact is that alcohol is risky. Everyone is at risk of becoming an alcoholic. Indeed, some of the most intelligent people have unwittingly fallen into the trap of alcoholism. This is because alcohol is fundamentally addictive. With chocolate, there is no slippery slope; there is no ‘risk’ of eating too much.
Next, the individual. Getting drunk is bad because it morally compromises the individual, making it easier for a person to make choices that they would deem immoral or unreasonable had they been sober.Alcohol is said to switch off the part of the brain which controls judgement. When your judgement is impaired, you do stupid things, sometimes immoral things, for which you can hardly be held fully responsible once in a state of intoxication.
But one thing for which you can be held responsible is getting yourself in that state to begin with. Getting hammered to such an extent that you’re impinging on other people’s freedoms: ruining a friend’s night, who feels obliged to look after you, groping random bystanders, sporadically imposing your vomit on something or someone, intoxicating yourself to such an extent that you can be said to have no control over what it is you are doing.
Surely to allow yourself to get into such a state is wrong. And this isn’t even the worst of what alcohol does to you.
Even so, I often hear, “But Henny, moderate drinking is good for your health, it reduces the risk of coronary heart disease.” Well let’s place this in context.
According to an article medically reviewed by Dr Rob Hicks, alcohol consumption has been linked to increased risk of mouth, pharyngeal and oesophageal cancers, colorectal and breast cancer, high blood pressure, gastrointestinal complications (such as gastritis, ulcers and liver disease), and the depletion of certain vitamins and minerals.
Furthermore, even if the risk of coronary heart disease is truly the bane of your existence, then investment in regular exercise and reducing salt and cholesterol levels in your diet can be an alternative well worthy of consideration.
Let’s look at the social consequences of alcohol. It is said that three-quarters of those who go to A&E on a weekend night are there because of alcohol related injuries. Society has to pay for this through tax, other patients in need of help suffer as a result of increased waiting times and limited resources, and that’s not even taking into account the people who are physically hurt or intimidated by random drunks in the street.
If you don’t like what alcohol does to society, if you don’t like the fact that it serves as a catalyst to things such as domestic violence and rape, then rather than saying, “Well I am never going to beat my spouse or rape someone so for me it is fine,” why not boycott the substance that facilitates such abhorrent acts, even if it does not directly cause them?
Banning the consumption of alcohol would be both illiberal and unlikely to work. But I would say that just because something is legal, doesn’t mean it is right and that we should do it.
On the whole, alcohol is a substance that isn’t great – not for society, not your health or your moral integrity. It isn’t even necessary for having a good time. Perhaps then, as the liberals of the 21st century, we should seriously consider resisting the social pressures that induce us to drink.
A culture in which more and more people abstain from drinking alcohol altogether necessarily leads to a society in which drunkenness and alcoholism are a rarity.
In abstaining from drink, we ourselves can become the change we want to see in society, and in doing so, liberate ourselves from the social pressures which lead us to drink at all. The very, very least we can do is to take a principled stance against getting drunk.