Showing posts with label climate change debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate change debate. Show all posts

Saturday, April 23, 2016

Quote of the Day: The Global Warming Theory has Failed. Money, Politics and Ideology have Replaced Science

In celebration of Earth Day, the Weather Channel founder John Coleman vented: (source USA Today/ht zero hedge)
The environmentalists, bureaucrats and politicians who make up the U.N.’s climate panel recruit scientists to research the climate issue. And they place only those who will produce the desired results. Money, politics and ideology have replaced science.

U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres has called for a “centralized transformation” that is “going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different” to combat the alleged global warming threat. How many Americans are looking forward to the U.N. transforming their lives?

Another U.N. official has admitted that the U.N. seeks to “redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” The former head of the U.N. climate panel also recently declared that global warming “is my religion.”

When all the scare talk is pushed aside, it is the science that should be the basis for the debate. And the hard cold truth is that the basic theory has failed. Many notable scientists reject man-made global warming fears. And several of them, including a Nobel Prize winner, are in the new Climate Hustle movie. The film is an informative and even humorous new feature length movie that is the ultimate answer to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. It will be shown one day only in theaters nationwide on May 2.

As a skeptic of man-made global warming, I love our environment as much as anyone. I share the deepest commitment to protecting our planet for our children and grandchildren. However, I desperately want to get politics out of the climate debate. The Paris climate agreement is all about empowering the U.N. and has nothing to do with the climate.


Saturday, September 06, 2014

Matt Ridley: Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

image
Writing at the Wall Street Journal, the prolific writer Matt Ridley asks “whatever happened to global warming?” (ht+ chart from AEI’s Mark Perry) Why has warming turned into cooling?

Here is the opening: (bold mine)
On Sept. 23 the United Nations will host a party for world leaders in New York to pledge urgent action against climate change. Yet leaders from China, India and Germany have already announced that they won't attend the summit and others are likely to follow, leaving President Obama looking a bit lonely. Could it be that they no longer regard it as an urgent threat that some time later in this century the air may get a bit warmer?

In effect, this is all that's left of the global-warming emergency the U.N. declared in its first report on the subject in 1990. The U.N. no longer claims that there will be dangerous or rapid climate change in the next two decades. Last September, between the second and final draft of its fifth assessment report, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change quietly downgraded the warming it expected in the 30 years following 1995, to about 0.5 degrees Celsius from 0.7 (or, in Fahrenheit, to about 0.9 degrees, from 1.3). 

Even that is likely to be too high. The climate-research establishment has finally admitted openly what skeptic scientists have been saying for nearly a decade: Global warming has stopped since shortly before this century began.

First the climate-research establishment denied that a pause existed, noting that if there was a pause, it would invalidate their theories. Now they say there is a pause (or "hiatus"), but that it doesn't after all invalidate their theories.

Alas, their explanations have made their predicament worse by implying that man-made climate change is so slow and tentative that it can be easily overwhelmed by natural variation in temperature—a possibility that they had previously all but ruled out.
Read the rest here

Monday, November 18, 2013

Typhoon Yolanda: From Natural to Man-Made Calamity; Spontaneous Order Thrives!

What alone enables mankind to advance and distinguishes man from the animals is social cooperation. It is labor alone that is productive: it creates wealth and therewith lays the outward foundations for the inward flowering of man.-Ludwig von Mises

There is something wrong with the system[1]

That comment came from an exasperated Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin who caviled over why relief goods have barely found its way to the victims of the storm.

Before I proceed to elaborate on this, let me add more compelling quotes from Ground Zero[2]:
But there is another reason the looting had abated.

"There is nothing left to loot," said Pedrosa. [Note: Christopher Pedrosa is a government aid worker]
You must have heard a popular saying: Money can’t buy everything. Here is a living proof, from the same article:

Rusty Lacambra, 42, is joining the exodus along with his wife, two sons and niece. On Monday night he hitched a lift in an army truck bound for the airport to wait with hundreds of others hoping for a free flight on a cargo plane to Manila.

"My house is destroyed," he said. "Even if you have money there is no food to buy. There is nothing here.
Massive Supply Disruption and Money Throwing Solutions

Two very important insights from the two quotes above.

First, massive supply disruption in the aftermath of Typhoon Yolanda on crisis stricken areas have been the central problem that has led to a near breakdown of community relationships.

Trade or voluntary exchanges has been incapacitated for the simple reason of lack of access to basic goods (food, water, medicine) to fulfill physiological needs (Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs[3]).

The basic question is why this, when there had been copious number of relief goods waiting to be distributed? This is the kernel of the Defense Secretary’s griping.

Second, the same comments put into the spotlight money’s role as medium of exchange: money’s exchangeability is ultimately founded on its purchasing power. Plenty of money with no goods or services to acquire equals zero purchasing power.

The unfolding developments from the unfortunate Typhoon Yolanda tragedy represent a testament to the fundamental economic truism where money, in and of itself is not wealth, rather it is the purchasing power of money (or what money can buy) that reflects on wealth.

Curiously every ‘expert’ seems to know of costs of the destruction and what is required for a recovery.

One expert jumps to the conclusion that the Philippine President’s 18.7 billion pesos funds may not be enough, where the Philippines should immediately resort to borrowing from the bond markets given the low interest rate and abundant liquidity[4].

[As a side note, funds available from the Office of the President are Php 16 billion in ‘savings’, Php 6 billion President’s Social Fund and Php 1 billion from calamity and contingency funds[5]]

A local politician, who is an economist and recently appointed as the head of a multilateral environmental agency, predicts Php 604 billion (USD 14 billion) impact to the economy, based on economic modelling data from a climate modeller. He postulates that the Philippine government should spend anywhere this amount to replace lost economic capacity[6].

These are what I call as populist politically correct shortcuts in approaching social ailments, specifically, throwing money at problem, replacing the politically incorrect authorities, demanding for more regulation or prohibition and or taxing the problem. Little goes beyond these.

But there are major problems with the above.

One, the accuracy of actual costs of damages. These are estimates; some of them are model based which barely seem as reality. 

Typhoon Pablo (December 2012) and Typhoon Pepeng (October 2009) have been the most destructive with costs pegged at Php 42.2 billion (USD 1.04 billion) and Php 27.7 billion (USD 608 million) respectively[7]. Note these typhoons have been recent. 

image

From a back of the envelop assessment of the potential costs from Typhoon Yolanda, looking at the National Statistical Coordination Board’s data[8], we can note that Eastern Visayas, which has been the hardest hit region, represents 2.29% of the 2012 statistical economy (constant prices).

If we add Central and Western Visayas, these regions account for 12.7% of the economy. But while the damages vary from locality to locality, my impression is that the damages in other regions won’t be as substantial or unlikely comparable with the scale of the damages in the epicentre: Eastern Visayas.

But given that I am not in the position to assess on the actual costs from the Typhoon, I will leave the tallying to those involved and will refrain from quibbling over statistics.

However in my view, while Typhoon Yolanda may top Pablo and Pepeng, which I have reservations on, I am even vastly suspicious of the Php 604 (USD 14 billion) estimates—which based on a non-statistical argument, particularly the use populist politics to justify a splurge in government spending via alarmism

As the great journalist, essayist and libertarian Henry Louis “HL” Mencken warned[9],
the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary
As of this writing property damages have been estimated at P10,339,290,061[10]

image

And a possible example of the “focusing illusion” or “anchoring” or the human tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered[11] could be the status of Yolanda as the “strongest” Typhoon to hit the country.

The Wall Street Journal notes that based on “maximum sustained winds”, it turns out that Typhoon Yolanda represents the 7th strongest—based on Pag-Asa data[12]. There may be technical contentions on these but a more important aspect will be the degree of destruction and overall impact on society.

Two, these experts assume that it is the responsibility of the government to undertake all the reconstruction efforts as if the private sector exists in a vacuum.

What guarantee will government spending “replace lost economic capacity”? If government spending equals the economy then why not let government spend ad infinitum and we just enjoy the fruits of their undertaking? The problem is, what government spends it has to take from someone. And that someone is us, the taxpayer, and us, the Peso holders.

Three, who determines where all the spending should be focused on or what constitutes as lost economic capacity? Recall that the dead victims from the storm had been part of the lost economic capacity, can the government spend to bring back these lost lives?

The problem with speaking in aggregates is like talking political motherhood statements, they rely on opaque presumptions. They sound plausible, but will this be practical or even feasible?

Fourth, all these “throwing money” solutions assume free lunches or no consequences from government borrowing and spending. However bigger spending means more taxes and inflation which tends to reduce economic capacity, or worst, shrink the purchasing power of the peso. What guarantees that additional debt burdens will not increase the risks of an economic Typhoon Yolanda, via a debt default or hyperinflation?

Yet these pathetic obsession to use statistics as policy setting instruments or image enhancement has been illustrated by the Philippine President’s attempt at rebutting the initial 10,000 estimated death toll.

Interviewed by the CNN[13], the Philippine president dismissed 10,000 estimates as ‘too much’ and offered a range of 2,000-2,500 instead. The Philippine president also even blamed global warming from the catastrophe.

In response to critics, the Philippine President even reportedly sacked the Police General[14] who allegedly had been the source of the 10,000 casualty estimates.

Obviously the President sees rising death toll as negatively influencing his popularity instead of the addressing the apparent mismanaging of relief operations post-Typhoon Yolanda.

As of this writing, official figures via National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council have been posted at 3,681[15] far larger from the President’s estimate. The United Nations tally has been at 4,460[16].

This focusing on the death figures leaves a bad taste in the mouth especially for the victims of the storm. “The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic” is quote popularly (mis) attributed to USSR despot Joseph Stalin[17].

Each lives lost is a tragedy. And tragedies, used as tools to promote political goals, are reprehensible.

As for climate change as the cause of Typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan), a Time report says that scientists “can't yet find a clear signal between global warming and killer tropical storms”[18]

All these shows that the popularity addicted President appear to be grasping at the straws to pass the blame of the catastrophe to save his image.

The Failure of Centrally Planned Disaster Relief Operations

We will hardly ever know the fatalities incurred directly from the powerful typhoon as distinguished from government failure.

In the same article where the Defense Secretary bemoaned “There is something wrong with the system”, a foreign aid team Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), complete with medical supplies, arrived in Cebu as early as Saturday looking to fly to Tacloban but this group hasn’t left even by Tuesday.

How many of the people, who perished just after the typhoon could have been saved by this volunteer medical aid group?

Yet what has kept relief goods from reaching the victims?

The Defense Minister’s lamentation has actually been an allusion to the “inclusion of politics in distribution of relief goods”[19]. This seems to have been affirmed by Cabinet Secretary Jose Rene Almendras who said that survivors complained of distribution of goods based on “political considerations”.

In short politics inhibited the flow of goods to fill in the supply-side disruption.

This stunning quote is a demonstration of what has led to Tacloban’s near social breakdown. (bold mine)
“If you want to make it fast, the government can open every airport in the Visayas then the [United Nations] and other entities can come in immediately,” Abdul Mutalis, of the private Putera Malaysia club, said.

“People are hungry. People need help,” he said, adding that the slow delivery of relief is prolonging the suffering of the typhoon survivors.

“We have to expedite [the delivery of aid] if we want to help them now. Action speaks louder than words,” he said.

For the last 20 years, Mutalis’ club has been responding to disasters, including the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia and the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan.

This is the mother of all disasters. There’s no word I can use right now (to describe this Philippine tragedy),” Mutalis said.
Again another private volunteer group wanting to reach the victims but has been impeded by politics.

Let me just say that the key for any recovery from a disaster is to incentivize people to stay within their territories for them reestablish their sources of livelihood and lifestyles.

As the illustrious 19th century English philosopher and political economist John Stuart Mill explained[20] (bold mine)
The possibility of a rapid repair of their disasters mainly depends on whether the country has been depopulated. If its effective population have not been extirpated at the time, and are not starved afterwards; then, with the same skill and knowledge which they had before, with their land and its permanent improvements undestroyed, and the more durable buildings probably unimpaired, or only partially injured, they have nearly all the requisites for their former amount of production. If there is as much of food left to them, or of valuables to buy food, as enables them by any amount of privation to remain alive and in working condition, they will in a short time have raised as great a produce, and acquired collectively as great wealth and as great a capital, as before; by the mere continuance of that ordinary amount of exertion which they are accustomed to employ in their occupations.
This is the role played by temporary relief operations which politics almost crippled

Apparently the supplyside bottleneck has forced people to consider fleeing depressed areas, not because of security, but mainly because of the lack of goods to fulfill physiological needs. Reports say that people stampeded into the airport wishing to be flown out, as Tacloban seemed to have been “thrown back to the primitive age”[21] says an official.

Based on all the accounts that I have gathered, it seemed that the incumbent administration originally planned to conduct relief operations from top-to-bottom process. Unfortunately Typhoon Yolanda exposed on the administration’s knowledge problem through several unforeseen factors that proved to be major hindrances:

-scale of devastation from the storm
-breakdown of local and national governments at the storm stricken areas
-rapid depletion of basic goods (e.g. “Money seemed to have no value in the city—people would rather have food, water, electricity and means of communication”)
-damaged roads and infrastructure
-insufficient logistics (teams from Philippine government teams have reportedly been ferried by the US military planes)
-partisan politics in the grassroots level (e.g. distribution of goods, closed roads on adjoining areas)
-political obstacles such as red tape that inhibited volunteer groups to conduct decentralized relief missions

Remember this is the same government which earlier trumpeted “implementing precautionary measures” with the aim for "zero casualty” as I pointed out last week

Yet unfolding events above seem to be validating my observations[22]
Leyte’s natural disaster tragedies (Typhoon Uring 1991, Typhoon Yolanda 2013 and 2006 Southern Leyte mudslide) have hardly been random: Destitution, steep cultural dependency on political solutions and geographic vulnerabilities account for as a deadly cocktail mix when confronted with Mother Earth’s tantrums.
Spontaneous Order Helped Saved the Day

I noted of observations where “spontaneous order” supposedly “failed” to emerge as social disorder dominated. This view confuses cause and effect. The reason why money became of no value is that, as pointed above, this has been due to a major dislocation, particularly the lack of access to basic goods (food, water, medicine) to fulfill physiological needs. There had been plenty of money but nothing to eat or drink.

Voluntary trade has been undermined because what has been demanded has been unavailable. The absence of basic goods led many towards desperate acts just to survive. Some resorted to looting. Others scampered away from Tacloban. Others just died.

On the other hand, the distribution of available relief goods have been politicized.

Remember people respond to incentives. When people perceive unfairness or polarization due to the politicization of distribution of goods, some people may resort to violence or aggression. Co-opting the resources of others has been one of the relevant evolutionary impulses[23] on why some people resort to violence.

I don’t deny that there have been criminal elements who employ dastardly acts such as the random stabbing of a 13 year old child[24]. But this hasn’t been a sign of failure of spontaneous order. Criminals exist everywhere at any class or category of community.

And more than that, a 5,000 strong communist rebel group operates in Leyte. The rebels initially became an obstacle to aid groups whom feared of being kidnapped. The rebels only declared a ceasefire last November 16th almost a week after the ferocious storm[25]. Yet how would one determine if the illegitimate acts during the post-storm transition have been committed by rebels or by criminals or by a dysfunctional society?

What you see depends on where you stand. When we do data mining to prove a point while ignoring the other evidences, such would be selective perception[26]—ignoring data that contradicts one’s belief. Maintaining rigid biases are hardly helpful in learning or discovering truths.

What then is spontaneous order?

If I go by the great Austrian economist Friedrich von Hayek’s definition[27], Spontaneous order would represent a “system which has developed not through the central direction or patronage of one or a few individuals but through the unintended consequences of the decisions of myriad individuals each pursuing their own interests through voluntary exchange, cooperation, and trial and error” (bold mine)

The reason I earlier placed in bold emphasis voluntary aid groups as Doctors Without Borders or the private Putera Malaysia club has been to show “voluntary exchange, cooperation, and trial and error” in motion.

And these have been only two of the stream of voluntary groups from NGOs, to private enterprises, individuals, family members or even publicly listed companies undertaking relief efforts[28].

I was even surprised when one of the US financial based website I frequently visit has a “Typhoon Haiyan Holiday Drive: Please Help Now”[29]

The internet has internationalized “spontaneous order”.

Even from the local levels we see “voluntary exchange, cooperation, and trial and error” in action. One private shipping company Starlite Ferries, offered at its expense, services to the Philippine Red Cross for a week to carry relief supplies and aid workers on calamity stricken areas.

A Tacloban based gasoline station businessman gave away his fuel inventories to people within the area as part of his relief effort[30].

One may object to the idea of charity as way of cooperation, but as John Stuart Mill pointed out above, disaster recovery would have to begin at home. People will have to rebuild their lives, and charity is one of the main paths to bridge any deficits brought about by calamities in order to attain this goal.

During the post Typhoon Ondoy calamity, I wrote that Charity is the province of the Marketplace[31] (bold original)
Remember it is in the vested interest of the private sector to be charitable.

This is not only due to self esteem or social purposes but for sustaining the economic environment.

Think of it, if retail store ABC's customer base have been blighted by the recent mass flooding, where a massive dislocation- population loss through death or permanent relocation to other places- would translate to an economic loss for the store, then, it would be in the interest of owners of store ABC to "charitably" or voluntarily provide assistance of various kind to the neighborhood in order to prevent such dislocation from worsening, or as a consequence from indifference, risks economic losses.

Hence, such acts of charity is of mutual benefit.
The benevolent acts of the Tacloban businessman and of Starlite Ferries reinforce my view.

And spontaneous order shouldn’t be mistaken for impulsive or knee jerk reactions but of a social process which evolves through time. Again F.A. Hayek[32] (Fatal Conceit)
To understand our civilisation, one must appreciate that the extended order resulted not from human design or intention but spontaneously: it arose from unintentionally conforming to certain traditional and largely moral practices, many of which men tend to dislike, whose significance they usually fail to understand, whose validity they cannot prove, and which have nonetheless fairly rapidly spread by means of an evolutionary selection — the comparative increase of population and wealth — of those groups that happened to follow them. The unwitting, reluctant, even painful adoption of these practices kept these groups together, increased their access to valuable information of all sorts, and enabled them to be 'fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it' (Genesis 1:28). This process is perhaps the least appreciated facet of human evolution.
A good example would be private aid groups who respond to natural disasters. They have organized their institutions to specialize on catering to communities suffering from natural disasters. This has been why their comments with regards to political shortcomings have been especially noteworthy and influential

The great F. A. Hayek[33] in the Law Legislation and Liberty presciently wrote about how the spontaneous orders are undermined
The spontaneous order arises from each element balancing all the various factors operating on it and by adjusting all its various actions to each other, a balance which will be destroyed if some of the actions are determined by another agency on the basis of different knowledge and in the service of different ends.
In other words, when the forces of decentralization have been obstructed by the forces of centralization. This represents exactly the logjams or bottlenecks in the relief goods distribution encountered by the private aid groups post-Typhoon Yolanda tragedy

Nevertheless, I am very pleased to see how the forces of “spontaneous order” have managed to influence the political order.

From the opening of paragraph of Friday’s headlines[34]; (bold mine)
The distribution of food, water and medicine to typhoon survivors here picked up speed on Thursday after a barrage of criticisms from aid workers and the Philippine and international press forced the Aquino administration to bring order to its response to the calamity caused by Supertyphoon “Yolanda.”
Forces of spontaneous order have once again helped saved the day!

Phisix: Will Typhoon Yolanda be a scapegoat or relegated to the history pages?

As expected, Typhoon Yolanda became a popular post hoc rationalization of stock market behaviour. The Phisix fell 1.4% on Monday which has mostly been blamed on the storm. But through the week, the Phisix crept higher to recover most of its losses. The Phisix closed on Friday with a marginal loss of .14%. In my view, the weekly performance fits the current trend of sideways movement. And this only proves that typhoons are essentially a non-event for the stock markets.

And as also expected, we see the broken window fallacy and the obsession to statistical economic figures at work. This is an example “Economists say growth usually rebounds quickly after natural disasters, due to the lift from spending on reconstruction.[35]” These people have to be reminded that replacement is not value added. 

image

The titleholder of the most destructive storm is Typhoon Pablo (December 2012) with Php 42.2 billion in property damages. Yet the Phisix soared to a new high in May of this year and statistical growth remains at 7% through three quarters of the year.

This has been due to the massive credit expansion in the banking system which has been largely channelled to the real estate-construction and allied industries, the key drivers of Philippine statistical growth.

Yet the costs to properties from Yolanda’s fury have still been one-fourth of Typhoon Pablo. I believe the gist of the casualty and collateral damage count will peak by the next two weeks.

Yet for as long as the banking system keeps pumping money to the real economy induced by zero bound rates, my guess is that Typhoon Yolanda will hardly be a factor in the statistical growth figures.

A Typhoon Yolanda version to the financial markets and to the statistical economy is when credit boom will morph into a credit bust.

I would rather be watching two neighbors, Indonesia and China, who seem to be experiencing re-emergent signs of financial market ‘tremors’ which poses as potential risks for a shock.

image

The USD-Indonesian rupiah is just .6% away from the September highs. The last time the rupiah hit a milestone this coincided with the turmoil in the ASEAN financial markets.

Yet the rising rupiah has been backed by a surge in Indonesia’s 10 year bond yields but still far (about 30 basis points) from the recent highs.

Also while Indonesia’s Credit Default Swap has fallen following a recent surge, it is not clear if the USD-rupiah breaks to new highs we will see a rebound in the CDS premium. The last time the USD-rupiah set new highs Indonesia’s CDS prices spiked.

Record setting US markets has failed to inspire Indonesia’s stocks. This week the JCI closed -1.69%.

Curiously all these lethargy comes as Indonesia’s central bank “unexpectedly” raised interest rates last week[36].

While I am not saying that a panic is imminent, I am saying that current conditions requires vigilance because Indonesia’s financial markets appear to be exhibiting signs of renewed stress. And if such market strains worsen, then risks of a contagion from a panic must not be disregarded.

Meanwhile the strains in the Chinese financial markets seem present in the overnight lending rates and 10 year bonds but hardly expressed in the CDS or the stock markets yet[37]. Whether the evolving development represents an aberration or a seminal trend has to be nonetheless established.

If the Philippine market does experience a convulsion in response to a possible deterioration of regional conditions, expect Typhoon Yolanda to be a favorite scapegoat.


[1] Inquirer.net Logjam in aid delivery, November 14, 2013



[4] Bloomberg.com Philippines Declares State of Calamity November 11, 2013 gcaptain.com



[7] Wikipedia.org Most destructive Typhoons in the Philippines

[8] National Statistical Coordination Board Gross Regional Domestic Product- Data and Charts

[9] Henry Louis Mencken IN DEFENSE OF WOMEN


[11] Wikipedia.org Anchoring

[12] Wall Street Journal Southeast Real Time blog Was Haiyan the Strongest Storm Ever?


[14] The Wall Street Journal SEA Real Time Blog Police General Who Predicted 10,000 Deaths Removed November 14, 2013

[15] GMA news Loc cit

[16] Philstar.com UN : Yolanda death toll over 4,000 November 15, 2013

[17] Wikiquote Misattributed Joseph Stalin. Wikiquote says that Kurt Tucholsky may have been the origin but David McCollough points at Joseph Stalin’s conversation with Winston Churchill in Tehran as possible source.



[20] John Stuart Mill, Book I, Chapter V Fundamental Propositions respecting Capital Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social Philosophy

[21] Inquirer.net Mad rush out of Tacloban November 13, 2013

[22] See Typhoon Yolanda and the Phisix, November 11, 2011



[25] Wall Street Journal SEA Blog Rebel Group in Philippines Declares Cease-Fire November 16, 2013

[26] Wikipedia.org Selective perception


[28] Inquirer.net Outpouring of support for ‘Yolanda’ survivors November 17, 2013; Yahoo.com Businessman gives away free fuel in typhoon-ravaged Tacloban November 15, 2013; Wall Street Journal Aid Groups Fan Out Across the Philippines November 15, 2013

[29] Minyanville.com Typhoon Haiyan Holiday Drive: Please Help Now November 14, 2013



[32] Friedrich von Hayek THE FATAL CONCEIT The Errors of Socialism p.6 libertarianismo.org

[33] Friedrich von Hayek Law Legislation and Liberty Volume I page 51 libertarianismo.org

[34] Inquirer.net Aid delivery picks up pace November 15, 2013


[36] Bloomberg.com Indonesia Unexpectedly Raises Key Rate November 12, 2013

Wednesday, October 02, 2013

Matthew Ridley on IPCC’s Global Lukewarming

The prolific scientist and author Matthew Ridley writes about the IPCC’s backsliding from alarmist anthropogenic global warming. (bold mine)
Yet read between the lines of yesterday’s report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and you see that even its authors are tiptoeing towards the moderate middle. They now admit there has been at least a 15-year standstill in temperatures, which they did not predict and cannot explain, something sceptics were denounced for claiming only two years ago. They concede, through gritted teeth, that over three decades, warming has been much slower than predicted. They have lowered their estimate of “transient” climate sensitivity, which tells you roughly how much the temperature will rise towards the end of this century, to 1-2.5C, up to a half of which has already happened.

They concede that sea level is rising at about one foot a century and showing no sign of acceleration. They admit there has been no measurable change in the frequency or severity of droughts, floods and storms. They are no longer predicting millions of climate refugees in the near future. They have had to give up on malaria getting worse, Antarctic ice caps collapsing, or a big methane burp from the Arctic (Lord Stern, who still talks about refugees, methane and ice caps, has obviously not got the memo). Talk of tipping points is gone.
Read the rest here

Saturday, August 17, 2013

Matthew Ridley on the Myths of Fracking and Wind Power’s Environmental Harm

Prolific author Matthew Ridley rebuts the 5 myths (lies) of fracking.

Here is a snippet:
Here are five things that they keep saying which are just not true. First, that shale gas production has polluted aquifers in the United States. Second, that it releases more methane than other forms of gas production. Third, that it uses a worryingly large amount of water. Fourth, that it uses hundreds of toxic chemicals. Fifth, that it causes damaging earthquakes.
Mr. Ridley also says that Wind Power contributes to more environmental damage than fracking:
Spoiling God’s glorious creation: as Clive Hambler of Oxford University has documented, each year between 6m and 18m birds and bats are killed in Spain alone by wind turbines, including rare griffon vultures, 400 of which were killed in one year, and even rarer Egyptian vultures. In Tasmania wedge-tailed eagles are in danger of extinction because of wind turbines. Norwegian wind farms kill ten white-tailed eagles each year. German wind turbines kill 200,000 bats a year, many of which have migrated hundreds of miles.
The wind industry, which is immune from prosecution for wildlife crime, counters that far more birds are killed by cars and cats and likes to point to a spurious calculation that if the climate gets very warm and habitats change then the oil industry could one day be said to have killed off many birds. But when was the last time your cat brought home an Imperial Eagle or a needle-tailed swift? Says Dr Hambler: “Climate change won’t drive those species to extinction; well-meaning environmentalists might.”

[Here's a video of a vulture hitting a turbine blade in Crete.]

Wind turbines are not only far more conspicuous than gas drilling rigs, but cover vastly more area. Just ten hectares (25 acres) of oil or gas drilling pads can produce more energy that the entire British wind industry. Which does the greatest harm to God’s glorious creation, rev?

Monday, August 12, 2013

Quote of the Day: Climate Change Without Humans and CO2

The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days – yes, FOUR DAYS – by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon.   And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time – EVERY DAY.

I don’t really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.

Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year – think about it.

Of course, I shouldn’t spoil this ‘touchy-feely tree-hugging’ moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years.   And it happens every year.

Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus ‘human-caused’ climate-change scenario.

(UPPERCASE-original)

This is from Ian Rutherford Plimer, Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies at Ruthfullyyours.com (hat tip Lance Vance Lew Rockwell Blog)

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

How Earth Hour Policies (Green Energy) Hurt Consumers: UK Edition

In UK, the push for green energy has only been prompting for higher energy bills.

The editorial of UK’s news outfit the Telegraph decries on the political obsession for green energy (hat tip AEI’s Professor Mark Perry)
With the worst snow conditions in the country since 1981, it’s worrying, to say the least, that gas supplies are running low. A month ago, The Sunday Telegraph warned in this column of the problems of an energy policy that puts expensive, inefficient green power before coal-fired and nuclear power. There have been a few signs that the Coalition is at last turning its attentions to the issue but, still, not nearly enough has been done. Now we are reaping the consequences. Because of a misguided faith in green energy, we have left ourselves far too dependent on foreign gas supplies, largely provided by Russian and Middle Eastern producers. Only 45 per cent of our gas consumption comes from domestic sources. All it takes is a spell of bad weather, and the closure of a gas pipeline from Belgium, to leave us dangerously exposed, and to send gas prices soaring. Talk of rationing may be exaggerated, but our energy policy is failing to deal with Britain’s fundamental incapacity to produce our own power.

Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary, may have granted planning permission this week to a new nuclear power station, Hinkley Point in Somerset. But one nuclear power station, with two new reactors, isn’t nearly enough. Moreover, it will take a decade to build and, even then, will only provide seven per cent of the country’s energy needs.

It is time for the Coalition to tear up its energy policy before the lights really do go out. The first priority must be to repeal the Climate Change Act of 2008, with its brutal, punishing targets: reducing carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, and 26 per cent by 2020. These targets have already had a disastrous effect, forcing the closure of coal-fired power stations, and increasing tax-funded subsidies on wind power. Next month, electricity bills will soar even higher, thanks to a new tax on carbon dioxide produced by coal-fired and gas-fired power stations.

There are good intentions behind a green energy policy, and no one would wilfully want to damage the environment. But green technology – in its current incarnation, anyway – is just too inefficient and expensive to meet our energy needs. In some of the worst weather for more than 30 years, green power still only provides a tiny fraction of our energy needs. Solar power is of limited use in our cold, dark, northern climate. And wind power isn’t much better – cold weather doesn’t necessarily mean windy weather.
As previously pointed out, earth hour/green energy policies are essentially misanthropic for such policies promote economic hardship and even death. The above is just an example.

Popularity or popular themes don’t make ideas valid or sound. Take it from Albert Einstein
What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right

Friday, March 22, 2013

Earth Hour: Keep Lights ON!

Many people will fall again for the demagoguery of celebrating “earth hour” purportedly for “saving” the environment. 

Most of them will simply follow “feel good” popular politically correct themes rather than understanding the real dynamics or “crony based” green energy politics behind them.  

This serves as example of the Bandwagon effects, not only in the marketplace, but also in the realm of the politics of environmentalism.

Earth Hour advocates avoid explaining the cost benefit tradeoffs between their populist pseudo-environmental interests (which are principally based on highly flawed computer simulations*) and the economic and social value of electricity to humanity. 

*people's lives are supposed to be determined by computer models which can't even predict economies and the markets! Queen Elizabeth even took to task the London School of Economics for failing to predict the 2008 crash.

They fail to take into account that “electricity is the backbone of modern life”. On the other hand, they elude discussing the costs of their themes from which life without electricity equals poverty and death.

North Korea or the medieval life are great examples of life without electricity.

So advocates of earth hour are basically misanthropists. They want people to suffer in the name of preserving the "environment" (ahem, promoting the interests of cronies and of the political class)
 
The following video from the Copenhagen Consensus eloquently showcases the benefits of electricity.

Danish environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg gives further explanations on the benefits of electricity at the Slate.com: (hat tip AEI’s Professor Mark Perry) [bold mine]
Electricity has given humanity huge benefits. Almost 3 billion people still burn dung, twigs, and other traditional fuels indoors to cook and keep warm, generating noxious fumes that kill an estimated 2 million people each year, mostly women and children. Likewise, just 100 years ago, the average American family spent six hours each week during cold months shoveling six tons of coal into the furnace (not to mention cleaning the coal dust from carpets, furniture, curtains, and bedclothes). In the developed world today, electric stoves and heaters have banished indoor air pollution.

Similarly, electricity has allowed us to mechanize much of our world, ending most backbreaking work. The washing machine liberated women from spending endless hours carrying water and beating clothing on scrub boards. The refrigerator made it possible for almost everyone to eat more fruits and vegetables, and to stop eating rotten food, which is the main reason why the most prevalent cancer for men in the United States in 1930, stomach cancer, is the least prevalent now.

Electricity has allowed us to irrigate fields and synthesize fertilizer from air. The light that it powers has enabled us to have active, productive lives past sunset. The electricity that people in rich countries consume is, on average, equivalent to the energy of 56 servants helping them. Even people in Sub-Saharan Africa have electricity equivalent to about three servants. They need more of it, not less.

This is relevant not only for the world’s poor. Because of rising energy prices from green subsidies, 800,000 German households can no longer pay their electricity bills. In the United Kingdom, there are now more than 5 million fuel-poor people, and the country’s electricity regulator now publicly worries that environmental targets could lead to blackouts in less than nine months.

Today, we produce only a small fraction of the energy that we need from solar and wind—0.7 percent from wind and just 0.1 percent from solar. These technologies currently are too expensive. They are also unreliable (we still have no idea what to do when the wind is not blowing). Even with optimistic assumptions, the International Energy Agency estimates that, by 2035, we will produce just 2.4 percent of our energy from wind and 0.8 percent from solar.

To green the world’s energy, we should abandon the old-fashioned policy of subsidizing unreliable solar and wind—a policy that has failed for 20 years, and that will fail for the next 22. Instead, we should focus on inventing new, more efficient green technologies to outcompete fossil fuels.

If we really want a sustainable future for all of humanity and our planet, we shouldn’t plunge ourselves back into darkness. Tackling climate change by turning off the lights and eating dinner by candlelight smacks of the “let them eat cake” approach to the world’s problems that appeals only to well-electrified, comfortable elites.
So we can’t discount of the "conspiracy theory" where one of the other possible subsidiary reasons for the massive printing of money by central banks could have been meant as subsidies for green energy via the pushing up or inflating prices of fossil fuels, which should make "unreliable" "inefficient" and "costly" green energy "competitive".

Unfortunately, markets know better. The free-market based Shale energy revolution has been proving to be the likely “environmental friendly” alternative more than the politically blessed “green energy” that has been founded on disinformation.