Driver Still Behind the Wheel

I love a sunny story and the most recent one I stumbled upon, cherished in the environmental movement, is a recent innovation – still under development – of a new method to turn toxic textile.factory effluent into clean water.

Go for it, Maria Jonstrup!

One of the most disturbing ingredients of the environmental debate, is the tendency to find a conflict between a decent environment and scientific and industrial innovations. While some, and indeed Dr Jonstrup’s, are admittedly labelled Green, others are seen as the enemy. What’s really the historical perspective, if we agree that environment means the living conditions for humans?

To make a travesty of Howard Roark’s court speech in The Fountainhead: Once upon a time, one man found out how to tame fire. He was probably burned at the stake by the local environmental organization.

Virtually all innovations have initially been under attack by environmental, or religious sceptics, be it electricity, motor vehicles or nuclear power. The current exception normally is what’s referred to as Green Invention, most often not primarily because it’s good for the environment, but because it got the blessing by the government, in other words is financed with tax money.

Jonstrup seems to be a welcome exception to this. Another one would be the recently started experiments with “no driver vehicles”, including trucks, using advanced GPS equipment to navigate, thus optimizing the fuel consumption and emissions. Don’t be scared. The tests so far have a human driver along, just in case, a bit as in commercial aircraft on autopilot. Exciting! What I like is that it’s developed in cooperation between universities and industry. Good luck!

Just found out that (according to BBC):

“When you were born, you were the:3,453,632,094th person alive on Earth and 77,442,249,607thperson to have lived since history began”

Go on, take the test. Don’t know what it’s really good for, but it’s a bit of fun, at least if you are easily amused. And please help me figure out how the exact numbers were calculated.

It’s apparently the magic in the numbers that now has awaken the Neo Malthusians, as we are supposed to reach seven billion any day now (Monday, according to the UN). Why not 6, 123 or 7,456? No, it’s the magic number. Over population is the scare of the day.

Well, walk outside and check if it’s really that crowded. Every time this scare appears, the doomsayers ignore some basic observations.

Some parts of the world, e.g, parts of Africa, rather suffer from too few people, with a poor infrastructure. The most crowded country in Europe (not counting those really tiny ones) is Holland. Last time I was in Holland, I did not hear anyone complain.

Many major European cities suffer from a housing shortage and excessive rental costs. To make a comparison, Stockholm has been struggling with the problem for decades, in Brussels, you can get a nice flat for a decent price just looking around during an afternoon. In the city with most expats per capita in the Union. The former city is highly regulated since WWII, the latter virtually lacks any regulations of the housing, or rental market. And when trying to navigate, you at least get the feeling that there has been no city planning since Leopold II. Good so.

Nativity varies and it is a well known fact that people tend to produce more offspring during war and poverty. Some, more well off, European countries are suffering from declining populations, bringing a threats to e.g. pension schemes.

But most importantly, never leave your moral compass in the desk drawer. Anytime you hear someone elaborate on the virtues of the – unbelievably inhuman – one child policy in China, or as a few Greens actually can do, consider forms of genocide, academically of course, it is claimed, check your premises and remind yourself of the one thing that really matters. Creating and caring for children are the most private parts of our existence. And should so remain.

Yesterday, I watched that widely acclaimed movie by Nora Ephron about Julia Childs and her later follower. Marvelous. And somehow, all about butter.

I seldom use butter, as I prefere olive oil, but for certain dishes it’s the best option. All sorts of fish, for example.

How interesting then that there is a current butter crisis in the stores. The cows to blame? Some people have actually suggested that.

But then there is this peculiar thing called the Butter Mountain in the EU. Simply put, a surplus (according to the politicians), calling for regulations within the CAP system, and – surprise – you suddenly have a shortage.

Let’s see what comes next. In Venezuela, one of the largest coffee been producers in the world, there is currently a coffee shortage.

In all cases of shortages, my Professor once told me, look for the price mechanism. And if a politician has meddled with it.

Sure, I can live without butter (after all there are substitutes), maybe even coffee, but there are worse situations out there, where regulations, or simply playing around with the market, cause real starvation.

What is it about? Whether global warming is natural or manmade is of crucial importance for both climate science and climate policy. Hence the the update on this issue. Besides, the author, an expert in atmospheric and space physics and founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service, discusses chaotic uncertainties of climate models and how to overcome them, Climategate and the Hockeystick graph – and shows “what we can say about the absence of post-1979 warming in the temperature data of the 20th century.”

The brochure has been/is presented by Prof. Singer during his (ongoing) lecture tour in Europe. Editions in German, French, Spanish and other languages are in preparation (German will be next). The book has been published with the support of the European Institute for Climate and Energy.

NIPCC vs. IPCC, Addressing the Disparity between Climate Models and Observations: Testing the Hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming, Interim Science Update, Presented at Majorana Conference in Erice, Sicily, August 2011, ISBN 978-3-940431-28-8, TvR 2011, 28 p. (29×21,5 cm). 27 illustrations and graphs (19 in color). 10,00 EUR.

Not yet a Tornado

Please tell me that we are beginning to see signs that otherwise alarmist journalists are beginning to both listen to science and to make the distinction between cause and effect. Even the crusader Susanna Baltscheffsky manages to write an interesting article (in Google translation) on weather phenomena. She points to why Tornadoes are more powerful in the US, than in Europe, because of geographic factors, and even acknowledges that solar activity is a major force in our sometimes irregular climate and weather. Some commentators still point out that she babbles a bit over CO2, but I’m more positive. Honor as due.

Because as all media outlets constantly need to comment on the climate debate, in most of the cases – everywhere – the reports are sloppy and filled with standard assertions, presented as facts. That Global Warming is increasing (on the contrary, if you look at current statistics). That the sole force behind this is human activity (simply a myth, as you probably know), that extreme weather has increased enormously (it has not, rather tornadoes, tsunamis and more tend to be cyclical and dependent on the geography), all polar bears are dying (the population has increased) and that we are running of oil (supplies are likely to increase if only people are alloud to drill for it, even if some middle east dictator decides to set fire to the fields in his country).

The above is just sloppiness, but it’s important, when hearing environmental statements to also try to look for causality. In the words of Bastiat: There what you see and what you don’t see.

To pick an example. Having an allergy my self, I’m always intrigued when I hear that due to environmental pollution, allergies have increased rapidly during the past century. Is there really a link? Well, possibly a small one, how about some other factors!

First of all, pollen is not a pollutant (except for me and my fellow sufferers) and it does not increase because of industrial activity.

Diagnosis has increased. That is not the same as increasing occurrence. What a hundred years ago was perceived as a normal cold, is today allergy.

Infant mortality has decreased. There is a reason why allergies are uncommon, sometimes never heard of in developing countries. And, sad to say, I would probably not have survived, maybe not even until being born, a couple of hundred years ago.

Thanks to industrialization, I am able to write this. And I’m rather grateful for that.

I Don't Want No Climate War

Apparently the UN climate meetings are not enough. Now, the Security Council will get involved.

From our beloved Guardian, we learn that: “A special meeting of the United Nations security council is due to consider whether to expand its mission to keep the peace in an era of climate change.”

We know that everyone was stressed up at the latest Bonn conference, but isn’t this going a bit to far?

The Security Council, like it not, is a product of the Cold War. In essence in order to avoid a destruction of the planet by a nuclear war. Hence the peculiar rules for who’s in or out. Again, like it or not, but this is a serious thing.

Here’s my modest recommendation: Just leave people alone. We don’t need no Green Helmets. There has basically been no Global Warming for over ten years, and even if it should come, infrastructure, economy, market economy you name it, is the only way out.

There might not be an imminent threat of nuclear war, but that’s no excuse for making up another Armageddon.

by Einar Du Rietz

Just like Icarus, the UNFCCC and several NGO’s attempts at controlling the climate sometimes feels like the height of pretentiousness. When this permanent crowd is flying around the globe telling ordinary people to change their lifestyles and pay more for necessities, like electricity, it’s nice to find some other perspective.

Madhulika Guhathakurta, a solar physicist at NASA and Daniel N. Baker, the director of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, highlights the, for a long time seldom mentioned, impact of something we definitely can’t control; solar activity.

Most informed readers probably know this, but it feels important to highlight these observations:

“Modern society depends on a variety of technologies that are susceptible to the extremes of space weather. Spectacular explosions on the Sun’s surface produce solar storms of intense magnetism and radiation. These events can disrupt the operation of power grids, railway signaling, magnetic surveying and drilling for oil and gas. Magnetic storms also heat the upper atmosphere, changing its density and composition and disrupting radio communications and GPS units. The storms’ charged particles can be a hazard to the health of astronauts and passengers on high altitude flights.

Severe storms in 1989 and 2003 caused blackouts in Canada and Sweden. In 1859, a solar super storm sparked fires in telegraph offices. Such storms are predicted every century or so, and perhaps we’re overdue. According to a 2008 National Academies report, a once-in-a-century solar storm could cause the financial damage of 20 Hurricane Katrinas.”

But, there is hope.

“The more we know about solar activity, the better we can protect ourselves. The Sun is surrounded by a fleet of spacecraft that can see sunspots forming, flares crackling and a solar storm about 30 minutes before it hits Earth. NASA and the National Science Foundation have also developed sophisticated models to predict where solar storms will go once they leave the Sun, akin to National Weather Service programs that track hurricanes and tornadoes on Earth. Thanks to these sentries, it is increasingly difficult for the Sun to take us by surprise.”

Sounds a lot more important than the recent conference in Bonn. And a reminder that climate can change and that we should be prepared, by letting industry develop and manufacture. Not take every opportunity to curb development.

The tradition of lighting a candle, or a fire, to guide travellers and visitors is probably as old as the tamed fire. With the invention of electricity and the light bulb, it also became more convenient and safer.

Since some years back, another – imposed – tradition is the so called Earth Hour on Saturday, when politicians and environmentalists, led by WWF expect you to turn out the lights.

My own tradition is to write about this every year, and the most encouraging parallel tradition of turning on your lights during the same hour is spreading, for example on Facebook.

I do admit that candles are cosy, as is a barbecue or an open fireplace. I do however acknowledge that it’s hardly a coincidence that most tragic accidents related to fires occur in different parts of Europe during the events when the open fire, or candle, is – again – part of the tradition. Christmas, Hanukkah, and up north in the spring greetings or light traditions around the darkest day of the year.

And I do, as I do every year, wish to point out that street lights and lighthouses are not there for no reason.

As the entire Earth Hour is just a gimmick with more than questionable environmental symbolism, feel free to light that candle if it makes you happy. If you really care about human safety, why not turn on the lamps.

For anyone having been involved in serious environmental and financial reporting, the flashy ads for environmentally friendly products, or glossy brochures from minor companies bragging about environmentally sound processes (most often less paper consumption) is quite embarrassing.

Industry, the EU institutions and financial analysts have since way back agreed to use the somewhat less sexy term: Less environmental impact, for the simple reason that all industrial activity and products do have an impact on the environment. Needless to say, lot’s of people in the industry, especially copy writers, not to mention translators, tend to violate this principle to spice up boring copy.

It’s a sound principle, but is it really that accurate?

Energy production causes environmental impact. All sorts. And both positive and and negative.

A motor vehicle naturally affects the environment, as do trams and trains, but did horse carriages really have lesser impact? An obvious example of a product that could rightly be regarded as friendly is the dishwasher, or washing machine for that matter, as both the consumption and emissions of water and detergents is less, compared to washing by hands. And that’s not counting the manpower.

The latter is important.

Far to often, environmental work is displayed as a battle between human beings and the environment. That man and nature can be in conflict is clear, and even more so with the recent tragic events in Japan and New Zealand, but what is really the point of environmental concern?

Environment is an empty concept if it’s not related to human living conditions, if not for any other reason, because it was invented by humans.

If nature, in the form of dangerous animals, or frogs or mosquitoes – or viruses – were let to furnish the earth to create optimum living conditions for them, this would certainly pose a threat to humans. (Some fringe debaters actually advocate genocide to achieve this.)

The lesson should be to think twice, both before advertising the environmentally friendly detergent and before attacking all human, industrial activity.