Only weeks after the peculiar, entirely symbolical and possibly dangerous Earth Hour gimmick, it’s now the 42′nd Earth Day. Hard to be against the Earth, but I’ve never understood the tendency to use these events to suggest an ongoing conflict between the earth and humanity.  

CFACT International President David Rothbard comments:

“Celebrate them all, we should. But as faithful followers of CFACT know, today’s environmentalism (at least the kind that gets all the attention) isn’t so much about reveling in the beauty of nature and its amazements as it is in using this lofty matter to hammer away at human productivity, prosperity, and plenty. Saddest and ironic of all, of course, is that people prospering is the very thing that helps us steward the environment the best.”

 You might add that without humans, there wouldn’t be an Earth Day, or that without human action, in the form of development and exploitation, there would be no humans. Ecological nostalgia is sometimes tempting to some, but I believe we all realize that if time travel was possible, none of us would survive even minutes in a prehistoric era.

 So, let’s take the opportunity to celebrate the innovations that increasingly is making it possible to lead a life even in areas still ridden by hardship. Not of prehistoric proportions, but at least with meagre possibilities to adjust housing and clothing to the weather, choose what we eat, or even have access to fresh drinking water.

Today’s sunny news is that Brittish scientists now have shown that hidden groundwater resources wating to be exploited in Africa, may amount to a hundred times the more shallow wells being used today.

  ”We estimate total groundwater storage in Africa to be 0.66 million km³ (0.36–1.75 million km³). Not all of this groundwater storage is available for abstraction, but the estimated volume is more than 100 times estimates of annual renewable freshwater resources on Africa. Groundwater resources are unevenly distributed: the largest groundwater volumes are found in the large sedimentary aquifers in the North African countries Libya, Algeria, Egypt and Sudan. Nevertheless, for many African countries appropriately sited and constructed boreholes can support handpump abstraction (yields of 0.1–0.3 l s⁻¹), and contain sufficient storage to sustain abstraction through inter-annual variations in recharge.” (Environmental Research Letters)

Getting access to this life saving resource will require skill and technology. Luckily, both have been let to flourish in parts of the world, less hurt by dictatorships, wars, socialism and misguided green activism and legislation.

Might appreciate some real support - not corruption and stupidity

The heroic boy scouts collected money, went to a village in deepest Africa and helped develop a well. A few month later, excessive use had dried it up and the final result was an extension of the desert.

Examples of unintended consequences (and sometimes plain stupidity) in development aid are numerous, some probably myths by now. Distributing loads of pork to Muslim countries. Rushing factory building until the installation collapse on top of people. The literature is also quite extensive. A useful introduction, or summary may be this.

Important to remember is that humanitarian catastrophes are seldom, if ever, caused by real villains in these cases, hence the words unintended and aid. Wars, planned famine and genocides are indeed orchestrated by evil, but they are never intended by the do-gooders.

The problems occur both with voluntary help and government programs, though the latter, for natural reason, tend to be more dangerous. As a matter of fact, lot’s of people working with government aid are smart, caring people, but often trapped in the system. One such hazard is the idea, launched some decades ago, and implemented in some countries, to legislate allocation of a minimum level of GDP to the foreign aid budget. Both the government, and the associated authorities are then forced to spend the annual funds.

Some countries try to make the best of the situation, for example by allocating funds to emergency help rather than budget support. Pouring money into a corrupt countries state budget most often leads to, in the less evil scenario, the money going straight into a Swiss bank account, or, which is worse, into buying weaponry used against neighbours or the country’s own population. On the other hand, budget support can also be the only way to boost investments in infrastructure. An alternative to building governmental roads and airports is of course to let private companies both develop, build and own. Such investments tend, if they are even allowed, however to be quite risky for the entrepreneur, facing the constant threat of both war and plain nationalization. The only simple solution, if not sufficient, seems to be to, to the extent possible, minimize governmental aid and let the not so small private, international networks do the job.

CFACT did have some other activities in Copenhagen as well

At the COP 15 in Copenhagen, remember, when the whole world was in hysteria over global warming and the last chance to halt it, one of the things that came out of the – otherwise generally considered catastrophic – meeting, was a pledge by developed countries to help third world countries, that somehow would be hurt the worst by weather changes. And not aloud to burn fossil fuels to develop, you might add. The discussion then moved to a hassle over if this, quite substantial sum, could be included in the budgets for foreign aid, or if it should be earmarked on top of these.

I spent most of the time in on of the cafeterias in the middle f it all. A great place both to write, go through collected material and listen in on the neighbours. Working was out of the question when a quite substantial African delegation nicked most of our chairs (luckily not the one I was sitting in) and started a loud meeting. It was in French, but I can tell you that it was not about global warming, or about the environment at all. It was about how to get as much money as possible from the naive tax payers up North.

Few things make me as happy as innovative solutions to environmental, and thus human, problems. The most recent innovation that caught my eye was the prototype for Ezystove, an an ultra simple stove, now being tried in Namibia. Production will probably take place in Namibia and Kenya, and the idea is that it should be locally manufactured, that it could run on different fuels and that it should be possible to install it using only a screw driver.

Might sound like a simple thing, but it will provide inexpensive cooking facilities in areas where electricity is scarce, if existent, and cut the need for fuel, compared to an open fire, by approximately 40 percent.

Another company developed low cost. as simple as possible, equipment for radio therapy in battling cancer in poor areas with a scarce supply of electricity. Naturally, the machines are not top notch, but they can provide care and improved quality of life, where this was not possible before.

A friend of mine found out how to not only recycle, but recycle PET bottles in a profitable way.

These examples are not that similar, but they share two things in common: They are beneficial to the environment, at least if you count human living conditions into that. And they were not developed by the delegates at the endless UNFCCC conferences.

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.