Volkswagen scandal: Unintended Consequence from Climate Change Politics

Prolific science author Matt Ridley explains why the Volkswagen scandal represents the unintended consequence from the politicization of Europe's auto industry due to climate change politics. [bold mine]

The Volkswagen testing scandal exposes rotten corruption at the core of regulation. Far from ushering in a brave new world of cleaner air, the technologies adopted by European car makers, driven by policy makers in Brussels, have been killing thousands of people a year through an obsession with lowering emissions of harmless carbon dioxide, at the expense of creating higher emissions of harmful nitrogen oxides. 

There is a lesson here that goes much wider than the car industry, the clean-air debate and even the regulation of business. The scandal is a symptom of the political world’s obsession with directing and commanding change, rather than encouraging it to evolve.

The great European switch to diesel engines was a top-down decision as a direct result of exaggerated fears about climate change. Convinced that the climate was about to warm rapidly, and extreme weather was about to get much worse, European governments signed the Kyoto protocol in 1997 and committed to reducing emissions of carbon dioxide in the hope that this would help. In the event, the global temperature stopped rising for 18 years, while droughts, floods and storms also showed no increase.

But in 1998, urged on by EU transport commissioner Neil Kinnock, welcomed by environment secretary John Prescott and acted on by chancellor Gordon Brown, Britain happily signed up to an EU agreement with car makers that they would cut carbon dioxide emissions by 25% over ten years. This suited German car makers, specialists in Rudolf Diesel’s engine design, because diesel engines have 15% lower CO2 emissions than petrol engines.

The EU agreement was “practically an order to switch to diesel”, says one clean-air campaigner. As subjects of Brussels, Britain obediently lowered tax on diesel cars, despite knowing that they produce four times as much nitrogen oxides as petrol, and 20 times as many particulates, both bad for human lungs.

The story is almost a textbook case of why top-down regulation can be so dangerous. It lets single-issue pressure groups set targets with no thought to collateral damage, and imposes regulation that inevitably gets captured by those with a vested interest. Regulation also often stifles innovation. We may never know just how much innovation in cleaner petrol engines was prevented.

Pls read the rest here

I can't resist a good quote when I see one...more from Mr. Ridley 

Dirigisme often does real harm. Telling people to eat less fat, based on a few dodgy studies in the 1950s that purported to find a link to heart disease, has probably worsened obesity by encouraging high-carbohydrate food. Discouraging electronic cigarettes, in the demonstrably wrong belief that they increased rather the decreased smoking, is slowing progress in the fight against smoking. Deliberately mandating that banks and government-sponsored enterprises (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) make or purchase sub-prime loans, as Bill Clinton and George Bush both did as a way of trying to raise home ownership among ethnic minorities, was a major contributor to the crash of 2008.

Equating order with control retains a powerful intuitive appeal, as the American social theorist Brink Lindsey has pointed out: ‘Despite the obvious successes of unplanned markets, despite the spectacular rise of the Internet’s decentralized order, and despite the well-publicized new science of “complexity” and its study of self-organizing systems, it is still widely assumed that the only alternative to central authority is chaos.’

That's because economic and political myths are popularized by media, political agents and their cronies.

Quote of the Day: Gene Selection: Society is built on mutually beneficial co-operation

At his blog, businessman, science journalist and author Matt Ridley discusses the political implication of Gene Selection versus Group Selection:

“Group selection” has always been portrayed as a more politically correct idea, implying that there is an evolutionary tendency to general altruism in people. Gene selection has generally seemed to be more of a right-wing idea, in which individuals are at the mercy of the harsh calculus of the genes.

Actually, this folk understanding is about as misleading as it can be. Society is not built on one-sided altruism but on mutually beneficial co-operation.

Nearly all the kind things people do in the world are done in the name of enlightened self-interest. Think of the people who sold you coffee, drove your train, even wrote your newspaper today. They were paid to do so but they did things for you (and you for them). Likewise, gene selection clearly drives the evolution of a co-operative instinct in the human breast, and not just towards close kin.

It can even drive a tendency to defend fellow members of the group if the survival of the group helps to perpetuate the genes. But group selection is a theory of competition between groups, and that is generally known by another name in human affairs. We call it war. If group selection were to work properly, war would mean the total annihilation of the enemy by the victorious group.

Matt Ridley: Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

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

How Western Environmentalism Shaped China’s One Child Policy

Ideas have consequences. 

China’s one child policy hasn’t been a communist idea, writes author Matthew Ridley. Instead this has emanated from western environmentalist ‘Malthusian’ concept, which had been embraced by a Chinese missile scientist who repackaged and pushed these to Chinese policymakers. The result from the adaption, as usual, has been unintended consequences

A slice from Mr. Ridley:

As China’s one-child policy comes officially to an end, it is time to write the epitaph on this horrible experiment — part of the blame for which lies, surprisingly, in the West and with green, rather than red, philosophy. The policy has left China with a demographic headache: in the mid-2020s its workforce will plummet by 10 million a year, while the number of the elderly rises at a similar rate.

The difficulty and cruelty of enforcing a one-child policy was borne out by two stories last week. The Chinese film director Zhang Yimou, who directed the Beijing Olympics’ opening ceremony in 2008, has been fined more than £700,000 for having three children, while another young woman has come forward with her story (from only two years ago) of being held down and forced to have an abortion at seven months when her second pregnancy was detected by the authorities.

It has been a crime in China to remove an intra-uterine device inserted at the behest of the authorities, and a village can be punished for not reporting an illegally pregnant inhabitant.

I used to assume unthinkingly that the one-child policy was a communist idea, just another instance of Mao’s brutality. But the facts clearly show that it was a green idea, taken almost directly from Malthusiasts in the West. Despite all his cruelty to adults, Mao generally left reproduction alone, confining himself to the family planning slogan “Later, longer, fewer”. After he died, this changed and we now know how.

Susan Greenhalgh, a professor of anthropology at Harvard, has uncovered the tale. In 1978, on his first visit to the West, Song Jian, a mathematician employed in calculating the trajectories of missiles, sat down for a beer with a Dutch professor, Geert Jan Olsder, at the Seventh Triennnial World Congress of the International Federation of Automatic Control in Helsinki to discuss “control theory”. Olsder told Song about the book The Limits to Growth, published by a fashionable think-tank called the Club of Rome, which had forecast the imminent collapse of civilisation under the pressure of expanding population and shrinking resources.

Read the rest here

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

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?

Read the rest of the explanation here.

Matthew Ridley: Bitcoin as Synthetic Money

The impressive and articulate Matthew Ridley on his blog explains that Bitcoin is a form of synthetic money: 

Bitcoins resemble “commodity money”, like gold or cowrie shells, which rely on scarcity and indestructibility to be a good store of value. Real commodity money is vulnerable to inflation if there is suddenly a new discovery of gold — or deflation if there is suddenly a demand to use the commodity differently. In theory “fiat money”, such as we use today, avoids these problems — but governments have always removed the check on supply by printing money at whim to reduce debts.

There might be a way to cross fiat with commodity money and capture the benefits of both. Selgin calls this “synthetic commodity” money. Unlike fiat money it would have absolute scarcity; unlike commodity money it would have no non-monetary use. For example, a government could print paper money and then ostentatiously destroy the lithograph plates to show that it would never print any more.

In effect, this happened to the Swiss Iraqi dinar in the 1990s. Saddam’s regime used high-quality money engraved in Switzerland and printed in Britain. But during the first Gulf war in 1990 the supply dried up because of sanctions. Saddam began to print dinars at home, but these were easily faked, so they fell in value. The Swiss dinars remained in circulation for many years (though growing tatty) and held their value against the dollar.

Metaphorically, Bitcoin’s creators have destroyed the plates by making it impossible for anybody to change the programmed supply. So far that part of the experiment is succeeding, but Bitcoins are not yet ready for prime time. A friend who acquired some is sitting on a handsome profit, but finds the only thing he can exchange them for in his nearest city is chocolate.

Selgin points out that to get an exchange network going from scratch is hard enough when a new currency is fully compatible with established money, as in Birmingham; or when it consists of a commodity with other uses. But to do so using something with no non-monetary uses, so no one ought to want it at all except as a means of trade, should be almost impossible.

This only makes Bitcoin’s modest foothold even more impressive. An appetite for new kinds of money is there. The use of mobile phone credits as a currency in Africa, pioneered by M-pesa, is another example, and has had as jealous a reaction from central banks as Birmingham’s private coins did from the Royal Mint.

Read the rest here.

I would add that bitcoin’s evolution has also been a function, not only of as a cross between fiat money and commodity money, but also of the technology adaption lifecycle or technology diffusion via the S-curve.

Welcoming the Gas Age

The future of the world’s energy will likely be dominated by natural gas, as Methane hydrate joins shale gas and deep sea gas.

Writes Matthew Ridley at the Rational Optimist Blog

Move over shale gas, here comes methane hydrate. (Perhaps.) On Tuesday the Japanese government’s drilling ship Chikyu started flaring off gas from a hole drilled into a solid deposit of methane and ice, 300 metres beneath the seabed under 1000 metres of water, 30 miles off the Japanese coast.

The real significance of this gas flare probably lies decades in the future, though the Japanese are talking about commercial production by 2018. The technology for getting fuel out of hydrated methane, also known as clathrate, is in its infancy. After many attempts to turn this “fire ice” into gas by heating it proved uneconomic, the technology used this week – depressurizing the stuff – was first tested five years ago in Northern Canada. It looks much more promising.

Methane hydrate is found all around the world beneath the seabed near continental margins as well as in the Arctic under land. Any combination of low temperature and high pressure causes methane and water to crystallise together in a sort of molecular lattice. Nobody knows exactly how much there is, but probably more than all the coal and oil put together, let alone other gas.

The proof that hydrate can be extracted should finally bury the stubborn myth that the world will run out of fossil fuels in any meaningful sense in the next few centuries, let alone decades. In 1866, William Stanley Jevons persuaded Gladstone that coal would soon run out. In 1922 a United States Presidential Commission said “Already the output of gas has begun to wane. Production of oil cannot long maintain its present rate.” In 1956, M. King Hubbert of Shell forecast that American gas production would peak in 1970. In 1977 Jimmy Carter said oil production would start to decline in “six or eight years”. Woops.

The key will be cost. However, Japan currently pays more than five times as much for natural gas as America so even high-cost gas will be welcome there. The American economy, drunk on cheap shale gas, will not rush to develop hydrate. (Unlike oil, there is no world price of gas because of the expense of liquefying it for transport by ship.)

Read the rest here.

Video: Matt Ridley: Fossil Fuels are Greening the Planet

In a talk hosted by reasonTV.com, prolific author Matt Ridley talks about how fossil fuels, contra popular wisdom, have been contributing to the greening of the planet.

Discovery Process as Antidote to Chaos and Volatility

The prolific author Matthew Ridley at the Wall Street Journal reviews my favorite iconoclast Nassim Nicolas Taleb’s new book Antifragile

Discovery is a trial and error process, what the French molecular biologist François Jacob called bricolage. From the textile machinery of the industrial revolution to the discovery of many pharmaceutical drugs, it was tinkering and evolutionary serendipity we have to thank, not design from first principles. Mr. Taleb systematically demolishes what he cheekily calls the "Soviet-Harvard" notion that birds fly because we lecture them how to—that is to say, that theories of how society works are necessary for society to work. Planning is inherently biased toward delay, complication and inflexibility, which is why companies falter when they get big enough to employ planners.

If trial and error is creative, then we should treat ruined entrepreneurs with the reverence that we reserve for fallen soldiers, Mr. Taleb thinks. The reason that restaurants are competitive is that they are constantly failing. A law that bailed out failing restaurants would result in disastrously dull food. The economic parallel hardly needs spelling out.

The author is a self-taught philosopher steeped in the stories and ideas of ancient Greece (a civilization founded, of course, by traders like Mr. Taleb from Lebanon, as Phoenicia is now known). Anti-intellectual books aren't often adorned by sentences like: "I have been trying to bring alive the ideas of Aenesidemus of Knossos, Antiochus of Laodicea, Menodotus of Nicomedia, Herodotus of Tarsus, and of course Sextus Empiricus." So he takes his discovery—that knowledge and progress are bottom-up phenomena—and derives an abstract theory from it: anti-fragility.

Something that is fragile, like a glass, can survive small shocks but not big ones. Something that is robust, like a rock, can survive both. But robust is only half way along the spectrum. There are things that are anti-fragile, meaning they actually improve when shocked, they feed on volatility. The restaurant sector is such a beast. So is the economy as a whole: It is precisely because of Joseph Schumpeter's "creative destruction" that it innovates, progresses and becomes resilient. The policy implications are clear: Bailouts risk making the economy more fragile.

In short, tolerance of failures, errors and the acceptance of change through risk taking, as well as, learning from and improving on them signifies as an ideal way to deal with uncertainty from which progress springs.

Libertarians are Thinkers, Not Feelers

Our adapted political ideology have not only been shaped by our life’s circumstances, orientation and other influences but importantly from our personality.

And from the psychological framework, libertarians are said to be thinkers and not impulsive and emotional chumps.

That’s according to a study cited by the prolific author Matthew Ridley at the Wall Street Journal

The study collated the results of 16 personality surveys and experiments completed by nearly 12,000 self-identified libertarians who visited YourMorals.org. The researchers compared the libertarians to tens of thousands of self-identified liberals and conservatives. It was hardly surprising that the team found that libertarians strongly value liberty, especially the "negative liberty" of freedom from interference by others. Given the philosophy of their heroes, from John Locke and John Stuart Mill to Ayn Rand and Ron Paul, it also comes as no surprise that libertarians are also individualistic, stressing the right and the need for people to stand on their own two feet, rather than the duty of others, or government, to care for people.

Perhaps more intriguingly, when libertarians reacted to moral dilemmas and in other tests, they displayed less emotion, less empathy and less disgust than either conservatives or liberals. They appeared to use "cold" calculation to reach utilitarian conclusions about whether (for instance) to save lives by sacrificing fewer lives. They reached correct, rather than intuitive, answers to math and logic problems, and they enjoyed "effortful and thoughtful cognitive tasks" more than others do.

The researchers found that libertarians had the most "masculine" psychological profile, while liberals had the most feminine, and these results held up even when they examined each gender separately, which "may explain why libertarianism appeals to men more than women."

All Americans value liberty, but libertarians seem to value it more. For social conservatives, liberty is often a means to the end of rolling back the welfare state, with its lax morals and redistributive taxation, so liberty can be infringed in the bedroom. For liberals, liberty is a way to extend rights to groups perceived to be oppressed, so liberty can be infringed in the boardroom. But for libertarians, liberty is an end in itself, trumping all other moral values.

Just a clarification: libertarianism is a political theory which according to Mr. Libertarian, Murray N. Rothbard is “an important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life” and that while libertarians agree with Lord Acton "liberty is the highest political end", it is “not necessarily the highest end on everyone's personal scale of values”.  

In short, in terms of politics yes "liberty is an end", but politics is just one of the many aspects of a person’s life.

Why Not to Pay Heed to the Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse

Emotions based issues sell because people are emotional animals. Yet among all the emotions it is fear which is most powerful. That’s why horror movies sell, stock market crashes occur [where fear is a symptom and an accelerator of the market process], and that’s why many fall prey easily to "fear" based politics (e.g. climate change, peak resources and etc…).

Doomsayers sell or are popular also because of many people’s attachment to the Pessimism bias or the bias which exaggerates the likelihood of a negative outcome.

The profound Matthew Ridley writing at the Wired.com chronicles a list of prediction failures made by prophets of the apocalypse or Armageddon.

Ironically, despite the string of utter prediction failures; fear based issues remain in high demand. These have been evident in four fronts of social affairs, particularly in chemicals, diseases, people and resources. Mr. Ridley calls them the four horsemen of the apocalyptic promises

Here is an excerpt from the article.

Religious zealots hardly have a monopoly on apocalyptic thinking. Consider some of the environmental cataclysms that so many experts promised were inevitable. Best-selling economist Robert Heilbroner in 1974: “The outlook for man, I believe, is painful, difficult, perhaps desperate, and the hope that can be held out for his future prospects seem to be very slim indeed.” Or best-selling ecologist Paul Ehrlich in 1968: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s ["and 1980s" was added in a later edition] the world will undergo famines—hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked on now … nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.” Or Jimmy Carter in a televised speech in 1977: “We could use up all of the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.”

Predictions of global famine and the end of oil in the 1970s proved just as wrong as end-of-the-world forecasts from millennialist priests. Yet there is no sign that experts are becoming more cautious about apocalyptic promises. If anything, the rhetoric has ramped up in recent years. Echoing the Mayan calendar folk, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved its Doomsday Clock one minute closer to midnight at the start of 2012, commenting: “The global community may be near a point of no return in efforts to prevent catastrophe from changes in Earth’s atmosphere.”

Over the five decades since the success of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962 and the four decades since the success of the Club of Rome’s The Limits to Growth in 1972, prophecies of doom on a colossal scale have become routine. Indeed, we seem to crave ever-more-frightening predictions—we are now, in writer Gary Alexander’s word, apocaholic. The past half century has brought us warnings of population explosions, global famines, plagues, water wars, oil exhaustion, mineral shortages, falling sperm counts, thinning ozone, acidifying rain, nuclear winters, Y2K bugs, mad cow epidemics, killer bees, sex-change fish, cell-phone-induced brain-cancer epidemics, and climate catastrophes.

So far all of these specters have turned out to be exaggerated. True, we have encountered obstacles, public-health emergencies, and even mass tragedies. But the promised Armageddons—the thresholds that cannot be uncrossed, the tipping points that cannot be untipped, the existential threats to Life as We Know It—have consistently failed to materialize. To see the full depth of our apocaholism, and to understand why we keep getting it so wrong, we need to consult the past 50 years of history.

The classic apocalypse has four horsemen, and our modern version follows that pattern, with the four riders being chemicals (DDT, CFCs, acid rain), diseases (bird flu, swine flu, SARS, AIDS, Ebola, mad cow disease), people (population, famine), and resources (oil, metals). Let’s visit them each in turn.

Read the rest here

Why We Should Be Wary of the Confirmation Bias

From the prodigious Matt Ridley writing at the Wall Street Journal,

One of the alarming things about confirmation bias is that it seems to get worse with greater expertise. Lawyers and doctors (but not weather forecasters who get regularly mugged by reality) become more confident in their judgment as they become more senior, requiring less positive evidence to support their views than they need negative evidence to drop them.

The origin of our tendency to confirmation bias is fairly obvious. Our brains were not built to find the truth but to make pragmatic judgments, check them cheaply and win arguments, whether we are in the right or in the wrong.

I find this very relevant, especially the last sentence. Debates at social network sites seem as testament to these.

Who will be in Charge of the Martians?

What happens if NASA’s exploration—via the Curiosity—in Mars finds life (microbes) in the Gale Crater? How will politics on earth deal with this?

The profound thinker and author Matthew Ridley at the Wall Street Journal offers some ideas

Like the announcement of the Higgs boson last week, however magical the moment may be in historical terms, it will not affect most people's daily lives. We can celebrate, congratulate, revel in the detail and philosophize on the meaning, but earthly life will continue as if little had happened.

Pretty soon, though, a political angle will emerge. For one thing, politicians and journalists from countries other than America will start to grumble that this discovery must "belong" to all humankind and not just to NASA. The U.S. government, despite having forked out all the costs of exploring Mars so far, including the $2.5 billion cost of Curiosity, will probably agree. But who will end up making the key decisions?

The United Nations is almost bound to set up an agency to oversee what experiments are planned, but the U.S. may prefer a different body. Private consortia may conceivably start to plan how to go and retrieve a sample, dreaming of the riches to be garnered from displaying it on Earth. If so, nongovernmental organizations will quickly begin to worry about the safety of such a scheme and to champion the rights of Martian microbes to be conserved and respected in their lairs.

In other words, the discovery of extraterrestrial life would produce some predictably messy earthly responses.

As far as I can discern there has been very little public discussion of these issues. The Outer Space Treaty, opened for signature in 1967 by the U.S., U.K. and Soviet Union and ratified by 100 governments, says that no country can claim political sovereignty over land in outer space. The treaty does not forbid private ownership of land in space, however, and it would be up to terrestrial courts to decide if such claims were recognized. Also NASA has clear policies on how to prevent the contamination of one planet with the life of another.

If we hear a radio signal from an extraterrestrial intelligence, there's also a protocol in place, drawn up by the International Academy of Astronautics and invoking three principles: that the decision on whether to reply should be made by an international body; that it should be sent on behalf of all humankind; and that its content should reflect a broad consensus.

Maybe the preeminent Milton Friedman’s Sahara desert concept of politics may apply to extraterrestrial life: If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert Mars, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand microbes. :D

First Shale Gas Output from China, India to Follow

I previously pointed out that, the Southeast Asian territorial dispute has NOT been about oil as popularly thought.

And since China has the largest reserves of Shale energy in the world, like the US, dependence on external sourcing of oil WILL diminish. So there hardly is any need or incentive for gunboat diplomacy (except to use this as diversion for other unstated reasons).

Also I pointed out that Shale gas revolution is the future of energy which should translate to a worldwide phenomenon.

I would guess that the shale gas revolution will be a worldwide phenomenon which should wean away our dependence on oil. The net effect outside manipulation of money by governments should be to materially bring down or lower prices of energy.

Now some confirmations to this prediction: China will be having its first shale gas output while India is slated to access local Shale energy too.

The roll out of Asia’s shale gas boom has began!

From Bloomberg (bold emphasis mine)

ONGC, India’s biggest explorer, is studying data for shale- gas deposits and awaiting a government policy on commercial drilling for gas trapped in shale rock, Sudhir Vasudeva, chairman of the state-run company, said in a telephone interview yesterday. China Petrochemical Corp. will start pumping the nation’s first shale gas from a project in Sichuan province next month, according to a report on Caixin’s website on May 15, citing the company…

India holds 6.1 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable shale gas reserves in three basins, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated in a report in January. That was less than 10 percent of the 63 trillion cubic feet estimate made the previous year, in April, by the U.S. Energy Information Administration in a report.

“The U.S. estimates are just estimates, and we’ll have to survey the geology and deposits and drill wells before we know how much shale gas we have,” Vasudeva said. “What we do know is that India does have shale-gas reserves.”

ONGC found shale gas at a well in India’s West Bengal state, according to a Jan. 27, 2011, statement. The company signed an agreement with ConocoPhillips (COP) on March 30 for developing shale resources in India and North America.

India Auction

India has started mapping its shale resources and will have exploration rules in place by 2013, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said March 23. Blocks will be auctioned next year after the policy is published, G.C. Chaturvedi, the top bureaucrat in the oil ministry, said Dec. 21…

China has 25.08 trillion cubic meters (886 trillion cubic feet) of exploitable onshore shale-gas reserves, the country’s land ministry said March 1. The world’s biggest energy consumer aims to produce 6.5 billion cubic meters of shale gas by 2015 and set a target of 60 billion to 100 billion cubic meters by 2020, the National Development and Reform Commission said.

China Shale

China drilled 50 shale-gas wells in the past year, compared with 1,300 a month in the U.S., Chris Faulkner, chief executive officer of Breitling Oil and Gas Corp., said April 23. It takes “three to five years” for a shale-gas discovery to start commercial production and an extensive pipeline network is needed to transport the fuel to consumers.

My comments

This should serve as more proof that shale gas is the future of energy.

This also means that the emphasis for acquiring energy reserves will largely be directed to Shale at the expense of alternatives (conventional oil, coal, nuclear, solar, wind)

And this is why energy geopolitics will shift to Shale.

My favorite environmental science and economics author Matt Ridley writes

The campaign to stop shale gas proving its case in the market is political, not scientific. Behind it lies vested interests. The Russian gas industry, which is alarmed at losing its impending near-monopoly on European gas supplies, has been vocal in its criticism of shale gas. The coal and nuclear industries too would like to see this baby strangled at birth, but have been less high-profile.

Most of the opposition, though, has come from those with a vested interest in renewable energy, including the big environmental pressure groups, which are alarmed that the rich subsidies paid to wind, biomass and solar may be under threat if gas gets too cheap and cuts carbon emissions too effectively. Their entire rationale for subsidy, parroted by their dutiful poodle Chris Huhne, when Energy Secretary, is that gas would get more expensive until even wind and solar looked cheap. That was wishful thinking.

Even if you do not think carbon emissions are the highest environmental priority, there is a more fundamental reason why using gas is good for the planet. No other species needs or uses it. Every time you grow a biofuel crop, harvest timber for a biomass power station, pave a desert with solar panels or dam a river for a hydro plant, you are stealing energy from the natural world. Even the wind is needed - by eagles for soaring, by bats for feeding (both are regularly killed by wind turbines). As the only species that uses gas, the more we use it the more we can leave other sources of energy for nature.

And lastly, given all of the above, this is further evidence that many have seduced to the quackery, peddled by politicians and mainstream media, that the Southeast Asian territorial disputes of Scarborough or Spratlys has been about oil.

As a side note, Japan and China has their version of territorial dispute through Senkaku Islands which I earlier pointed out. Yet, in spite of the supposed bickering, Japan-China-South Korea concluded last week what has been labeled as the "Trilateral Summit" covering vast economic and political issues

Part of the rapprochement reached from the conference as noted by Xinhua, ironically China’s official press agency:

On strengthening communication and coordination in regional and international affairs, they stressed the mutually reinforcing and complementary roles of the trilateral cooperation and such regional fora as ASEAN Plus One, ASEAN Plus Three, East Asia Summit, ASEAN Regional Forum and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, said the declaration.

They reaffirmed that the ASEAN Plus Working Groups need to be established without delay to accelerate the discussion on a regional comprehensive economic partnership towards the commencement of negotiations, taking into account the initiatives of East Asia Free Trade Area (EAFTA) and Comprehensive Economic Partnership for East Asia (CEPEA).

So again, the Philippines either has a Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde relationship with China or that all the ruckus about the gunboat diplomacy has been geopolitical vaudeville.

Video: "Ideas Having Sex" A Conversation with Matt Ridley and John Tierney

(hat tip Greg Ransom)

17 Reasons to be a Rational Optimist

My favorite science and environmental columnist and author of the must read Rational Optimist, the eminent Matthew Ridley propounds 17 reasons why we should be cheerful:

1. We're better off now

2. Urban living is a good thing

3. Poverty is nose-diving

4. The important stuff costs less

5. The environment is better than you think

6. Shopping fuels innovation

7. Global trade enriches our lives

8. More farm production = more wilderness

9. The good old days weren't

10. Population growth is not a threat

11. Oil is not running out

12. We are the luckiest generation

13. Storms are not getting worse

14. Great ideas keep coming

15. We can solve all our problems

16. This depression is not depressing

17. Optimists are right

Read Mr. Ridley’s explanations here.

All the above redounds to a single most important theme: the human being.

Rational optimism is a bet on human capital, or in the context of the Austrian economic school, praxeology or the science of human action—purposeful behavior towards the fulfillment of an end which aims to substitute present unsatisfactory conditions.

Human actions in pursuit of constant improvements is likely to bring about positive changes, despite attendant challenges (especially from politicians, the regulators and cronies).

People are the ultimate resource, as the great author and Professor Julian Simon once wrote,

Only one important resource has shown a trend of increasing scarcity rather than increasing abundance. It is the most important and valuable resource of all—human beings

Quote of the Day: Wind Power Scam

To the nearest whole number, the percentage of the world’s energy that comes from wind turbines today is: zero. Despite the regressive subsidy (pushing pensioners into fuel poverty while improving the wine cellars of grand estates), despite tearing rural communities apart, killing jobs, despoiling views, erecting pylons, felling forests, killing bats and eagles, causing industrial accidents, clogging motorways, polluting lakes in Inner Mongolia with the toxic and radioactive tailings from refining neodymium, a ton of which is in the average turbine — despite all this, the total energy generated each day by wind has yet to reach half a per cent worldwide…

The real enemy is not wind farms per se, but groupthink and hysteria which allowed such a flawed idea to progress — with a minimum of intellectual opposition.

That’s from prolific author Matt Ridley writing at the spectator.co.uk, who is sponsoring an essay contest to challenge the “consensus-worshipping, heretic-hunting environment”, called “Matt Ridley prize for environmental heresy” with prize money of £ 8,500 (estimated 575k pesos).

Online Honesty

It is interesting to know that people seem to be more honest in an impersonal setting like the online environment

Explains another favorite author of mine, Matt Ridley at the Wall Street Journal (bold emphasis mine)

It is now well known that people are generally accurate and (sometimes embarrassingly) honest about their personalities when profiling themselves on social-networking sites. Patients are willing to be more open about psychiatric symptoms to an automated online doctor than a real one. Pollsters find that people give more honest answers to an online survey than to one conducted by phone.

But online honesty cuts both ways. Bloggers find that readers who comment on their posts are often harshly frank but that these same rude critics become polite if contacted directly. There's a curious pattern here that goes against old concerns over the threat of online dissembling. In fact, the mechanized medium of the Internet causes not concealment but disinhibition, giving us both confessional behavior and ugly brusqueness. When the medium is impersonal, people are prepared to be personal…

Deep in our psyches, the act of writing a furious online critique of someone's views does not feel like a confrontation, whereas telling them the same thing over the phone or face to face does. All the cues are missing that would warn us not to risk a revenge attack by being too frank.

The phenomenon has a name: the online disinhibition effect. John Suler of Rider University, who coined the phrase, points out that, online, the cues to status and hierarchy are also missing. Just like junior apes, junior people are reluctant to say what they really think to somebody with authority for fear of disapproval and punishment. "But online, in what feels like a peer relationship—with the appearances of 'authority' minimized—people are much more willing to speak out or misbehave."

Internet flaming and its benign equivalent, online honesty, are a surprise. Two decades ago, most people thought the anonymity of the online world would cause an epidemic of dishonesty, just as they thought it would lead to geeky social isolation. Then along came social networking, and the Internet not only turned social but became embarrassingly honest. The greatest perils most people perceive in their children's social networking are that they spend too much time being social and that they admit to things that will come back to haunt them when they apply for work

My comments:

Much of our actions seem to be guided by social signaling.

Popular impression about the effects of social networking have hardly been accurate.

I find this article very relevant. I find it easier to discuss or debate online, perhaps for the same reasons cited: cues to status and hierarchy become less of an influence.

But online honesty does have harmful effects too, deficiency in diplomatic expression especially against the powers that may lead to undesirable or even adverse personal consequence such as the arrests or incarceration of bloggers in South Korea or Cuba.

Imprudent social networking remarks (in Facebook or in Twitter) have also costs people jobs and personal relationships.

7 Billion People: Boon or Bane?

The United Nations says that world population have reached 7 billion.

In attempting to visualize the impact of 7 billion people The Economist writes,

THE UN's doughty demographers have declared that October 31st is the day on which the world's population reached 7 billion. They may be wrong (the UN got the timing of the 6 billionth birth out by a couple of years) but no matter: the announcement has triggered celebrations in maternity wards around the globe and a hunt for the 7 billionth child. Yet the growth in the world’s population is actually slowing. The peak was in the late 1960s, when it was rising by almost 2% a year. Now the rate is half that. The last time it was so low was in 1950, when the death rate was much higher. The result is that the next billion people will take 14 years to arrive, the first time that a billion milestone has taken longer to reach than the one before. The billion after that will take 18 years. Where will all these people fit? The chart below, worked out on a maximum population density of six Economist staffers per square metre, gives the space needed to accommodate the world's population at various points in history, expressed in multiples of the borough of Manhattan. Looked at another way, each of us now has the equivalent of Red Square to ourselves.

7 billion represents merely a statistical estimate which most likely is an inaccurate measure of the real number of the world’s population.

Yet, the UN’s declaration seems loaded with political inferences.

For instance, the Economist article above tries to project maximum land allocated per individual or a population density. But this would be a chimera for the simple reason that all land area are not the same (e.g. mountains are different from coastline or from hills or from plateau; there are private owned and public owned) and that each individual does not use up or require as much space as what the Economist implies.

So the framing from the 7 billion figure could essentially foster political alarmism over a potential conflict from growing population relative to the scarcity of land which is fundamentally not only false but unrealistic.

The other implication of the UN’s hype is to give neo-Malthusians (who falsely believed that overpopulation would translate to a catastrophe for mankind or the Malthusian Catastrophe) room to advocate for more political controls on everyone. Their focal point has been centered on the strains to access scarce resources and to the environmental impact from a growing population.

Following charts from World Bank-Google Public Data

Yet even if there is some semblance of truth to the claim that we are now 7 billion people, the $7 billion question is that how have we been able to successfully reach this state in defiance of the doom mongers’ expectations of a ‘catastrophe’? And importantly if such factors will continue to support even a larger population?

The Economist rightly points out that world fertility rate have been going down.

If this slowing fertility trend should continue, then population growth trends would imply for a slowdown or even a potential peaking.

Nevertheless, another very important aspect that has supported today’s 7 billion people has been a huge jump in GDP per capita that coincides with the slowing fertility growth

The substantial improvement in per capita GDP has mostly been because of globalization and a more pervasive adaption of economic freedom.

Competition in free markets has been cultivating and accelerating the rate of technological innovations that has helped in resolving the scarcity problem in many aspects such as in the science and medicine, information and communications, business process and etc..

Largely uncelebrated hero Norman Borlaug discovered high yielding wheat varieties which he combined with modern agricultural techniques which paved way for the green revolution. Mr. Borlaug was eventually awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and was known as the ‘father of green revolution’ who has been credited with saving over a billion people from starvation

And further advancements in technology whose costs have materially decreased have became available to a wider range of people which has increased people's lifespans

The very impressive author Matthew Ridley wearing his Julian Simon hat (the famous free market economist who made a controversial bet against Malthusian Paul Elrich and won) sums up at the Wall Street Journal on why population growth trends will slow

(bold emphasis mine)

Birth rates have gone down because of prosperity, not poverty. Everywhere it has occurred, it has followed a fall in child mortality and famine and an increase in income and education. The wider availability of contraception has been necessary, even vital, for this shift, but it has not been sufficient.

To a biologist, the demographic transition is both surprising and intriguing. No other species drops its birth rate when its food supply increases. Frankly, no expert has yet fully explained the phenomenon. It remains something of a demographic enigma.

The best guess is that modern society causes human beings to switch their reproductive strategy from quantity to quality. Thus, once child mortality drops and paid work becomes available to the children of subsistence farmers, parents become more interested in getting one or two children into education or jobs than in begetting lots of heirs and spares for the farm.

Whatever the explanation, history shows that top-down policies aimed directly at population control have generally proved less successful than bottom-up ones aimed at human welfare, which get population control as a bonus. The faster poor countries can grow their economies, the slower they will grow their populations.

While present developments has generated much progress, there are still many afflicted by poverty. That’s because there continues to be meaningful resistance in embracing a bottom up approach in dealing with socio-economic development.

It's really not about the number of people but the process or the means by which people use to sustain their living. This means, in general, the world is much better off with MORE PRODUCTIVE people.