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!

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.

Yesterday, I witnessed a courageous team save lives by clearing the roof tops from snow and ice. There has already been casualties this year, caused by falling ice, so I regard these fellows as the heroes of the season. It took – skilled and expensive – manpower, but heavy equipment, including a lift was also necessary. That means technology and fuel.

In this record breaking winter, it feels safe to have things like that. And it feels safe to have technologically advanced hospitals taking care of all the broken limbs caused by slippery sidewalks. (However, where I’m spending the winter, the emergency is a government monopoly, so the waiting lines are long.)

On the other side of the globe, a part of Australia the size of France and Germany together, is hit by one of the worst and most devastating flooding ever. We can only begin to imagine the resources needed for both rescuing and rebuilding.

You hear some mumbling about global warming and climate change in relation to this, and sure, climate changes. All serious scientists however, point – in the case of Australia – to La Niña, sister to El Niño. These are cyclical, recurring phenomena, recorded since the 19th century, but naturally older than that. That’s why it’s so dangerous to tell people to stop producing energy and technology, or even to slow down the production. At times like this it’s more needed than ever.

May I humbly suggest that the delegates at the next climate conference take a moment to contemplate this, and the potential dangers of meddling with both development and other people’s resources, in a vain attempt to control the climate.

DENNIS AVERY

I can’t help but praise Michael Specter’s new book: Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives. Specter warns that we live in a world where the leaders of African nations prefer to let their citizens starve to death rather than import genetically-modified food grains. Childhood vaccines have proven to be the most effective public health measure in history, yet people march on Washington to protest their use. Fifty years ago pharmaceutical companies were regarded as vital supports for our good health and lengthening life spans; now they are seen as callous corporate enemies of health and the environment.  READ MORE

Oxford Union Chooses Economic Growth Over Climate Change

Debate Win for CFACT Advisor Lord Christopher Monckton

Last week the Oxford Union, one of the world’s premier debate societies, chose economic growth over climate change by a vote of 133-110.  The vote by students at an elite U.K. university illustrates the continued shift of  public support away from the global warming scare.

The proponents of global warming policy always seem to lose whenever they encounter a fair forum where both sides receive equal time.  Key warmists such as Nobel Laureate Al Gore and the IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri avoid debate at all costs.   Lord Monckton has repeatedly offered to debate Mr. Gore.  Mr. Gore if you truly want us all to agree to massive restrictions to our freedom and a lower standard of living it’s time you step up and debate.

The case in favor of the proposition, “This House would put economic growth before combating climate change” was argued by Lord Christopher Monckton, Lord Leach of Fairford, Lord Lawson of Blaby former Chancellor of the Exchequer and James Delingpole of the Daily Telegraph.  The opposition was argued by Rajesh Makwana of Share the World’s Resources, Lord Larry Whitty, former Under-Secretary of State of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Mike Mason of Climate Care and Zara McGlone, Union Secretary.

The Science and Public Policy Institute gave the following account:

For what is believed to be the first time ever in England, an audience of university undergraduates has decisively rejected the notion that “global warming” is or could become a global crisis. The only previous defeat for climate extremism among an undergraduate audience was at St. Andrew’s University, Scotland, in the spring of 2009, when the climate extremists were defeated by three votes.

Last week, members of the historic Oxford Union Society, the world’s premier debating society, carried the motion “That this House would put economic growth before combating climate change” by 135 votes to 110. The debate was sponsored by the Science and Public Policy Institute, Washington DC.

Serious observers are interpreting this shock result as a sign that students are now impatiently rejecting the relentless extremist propaganda taught under the guise of compulsory environmental-studies classes in British schools, confirming opinion-poll findings that the voters are no longer frightened by “global warming” scare stories, if they ever were.

When the Union’s president, Laura Winwood, announced the result in the Victorian-Gothich Gladstone Room, three peers cheered with the undergraduates, and one peer drowned his sorrows in beer.

Lord Lawson of Blaby, Margaret Thatcher’s former finance minister, opened the case for the proposition by saying that the economic proposals put forward by the UN’s climate panel and its supporters did not add up. It would be better to wait and see whether the scientists had gotten it right. It was not sensible to make expensive spending commitments, particularly at a time of great economic hardship, when the effectiveness of the spending was gravely in doubt and when it might do more harm than good.

At one point, Lord Lawson was interrupted by a US student, who demanded to know what was his connection with the Science and Public Policy Institute, and what were the Institute’s sources of funding. Lord Lawson was cheered when he said he neither knew nor cared who funded the Institute.

Ms. Zara McGlone, Secretary of the Oxford Union, opposed the motion, saying that greenhouse gases had an effect [they do, but it is very small]; that the precautionary principle required immediate action, just in case and regardless of expense [but one must also bear in mind the cost of the precautions themselves, which can and often do easily exceed the cost of inaction]; that Bangladesh was sinking beneath the waves [a recent study by Prof. Niklas Moerner shows that sea level in Bangladesh has actually fallen]; that the majority of scientists believed “global warming” was a problem [she offered no evidence for this]; and that “irreversible natural destruction” would occur if we did nothing [but she did not offer any evidence].

Mr. James Delingpole, a blogger for the leading British conservative national newspaper The Daily Telegraph, seconded the proposition, saying that – politically speaking – the climate extremists had long since lost the argument. The general public simply did not buy the scare stories any more. The endless tales of Biblical disasters peddled by the alarmist faction were an unwelcome and now fortunately failed recrudescence of dull, gray Puritanism. Instead of hand-wringing and bed-wetting, we should celebrate the considerable achievements of the human race and start having fun.

Lord Whitty, a Labor peer from the trades union movement and, until recently, Labor’s Environment Minister in the Upper House, said that the world’s oil supplies were rapidly running out [in fact, record new finds have been made in the past five years]; that we needed to change our definition of economic growth to take into account the value lost when we damaged the environment [it is artificial accounting of this kind that has left Britain as bankrupt as Greece after 13 years of Labor government]; that green jobs created by governments would help to end unemployment [but Milton Friedman won his Nobel Prize for economics by demonstrating that every artificial job created at taxpayers’ expense destroys two real jobs in the wealth-producing private sector]; that humans were the cause of most of the past century’s warming [there is no evidence for that: the case is built on speculation by programmers of computer models]; that temperature today was at its highest in at least 40 million years [in fact, it was higher than today by at least 12.5 F° for most of the past 550 million years]; and that 95% of scientists believed our influence on the climate was catastrophic [no one has asked them].

Lord Monckton repeatedly interrupted Lord Whitty to ask him to give a reference in the scientific literature for his suggestion that 95% of scientists believed our influence on the climate was catastrophic. Lord Whitty was unable to provide the source for his figure, but said that everyone knew it was true. Under further pressure from Lord Monckton, Lord Whitty conceded that the figure should perhaps be 92%. Lord Monckton asked: “And your reference is?” Lord Whitty was unable to reply. Hon. Members began to join in, jeering “Your reference? Your reference?” Lord Whitty sat down looking baffled.

Lord Leach of Fairford, whom Margaret Thatcher appointed a Life Peer for his educational work, spoke third for the proposition. He said that we no longer knew whether or not there had been much “global warming” over the 20^th century, because the Climategate emails had exposed the terrestrial temperature records as defective. In any event, he said, throwing good money after bad on various alternative-energy boondoggles was unlikely to prove profitable in the long term and would ultimately do harm.

Mr. Rajesh Makwana, executive director of “Share The World’s Resources”, speaking third for the opposition, said that climate change was manmade [but he did not produce any evidence for that assertion]; that CO2 emissions were growing at 3% a year [but it is concentrations, not emissions, that may in theory affect climate, and concentrations are rising at a harmless 0.5% a year]; that the UN’s climate panel had forecast a 7 F° “global warming” for the 21^st century [it’s gotten off to a bad start, with a cooling of 0.2 F° so far]; and that the consequences of “global warming” would be dire [yet, in the audience, sat Mr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, whose landmark paper of 2008 had established that not one of 539 scientific papers on “global climate change” provided any evidence whatsoever that “global warming” would be catastrophic].

Lord Monckton, a former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the UK, concluded the case for the proposition. He drew immediate laughter and cheers when he described himself as “Christopher Walter, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, scholar, philanthropist, wit, man about town, and former chairman of the Wines and Spirits Committee of this honourable Society”. At that point his cummerbund came undone. He held it up to the audience and said, “If I asked this House how long this cummerbund is, you might telephone around all the manufacturers and ask them how many cummerbunds they made, and how long each type of cummerbund was, and put the data into a computer model run by a zitty teenager eating too many doughnuts, and the computer would make an expensive guess. Or you could take a tape-measure and” – glaring at the opposition across the despatch-box – “measure it!” [cheers].

Lord Monckton said that real-world measurements, as opposed to models, showed that the warming effect of CO2 was a tiny fraction of the estimates peddled by the UN’s climate panel. He said that he would take his lead from Lord Lawson, however, in concentrating on the economics rather than the science. He glared at the opposition again and demanded whether, since they had declared themselves to be so worried about “global warming”, they would care to tell him – to two places of decimals and one standard deviation – the UN’s central estimate of the “global warming” that might result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The opposition were unable to reply. Lord Monckton told them the answer was 3.26 plus or minus 0.69 Kelvin or Celsius degrees. An Hon. Member interrupted: “And your reference is?” Lord Monckton replied: “IPCC, 2007, chapter 10, box 10.2.” [cheers]. He concluded that shutting down the entire global economy for a whole year, with all the death, destruction, disaster, disease and distress that that would cause, would forestall just 4.7 ln(390/388) = 0.024 Kelvin or Celsius degrees of “global warming”, so that total economic shutdown for 41 years would prevent just 1 K of warming. Adaptation as and if necessary would be orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective.

Mr. Mike Mason, founder and managing director of “Climate Care”, concluded for the opposition. He said that the proposition were peculiar people, and that Lord Monckton was more peculiar than most, in that he was not a real Lord. Lord Monckton, on a point of order, told Mr. Mason that the proposition had avoided personalities and that if Mr. Mason were unable to argue other than ad hominem he should “get out”. [cheers] Mr. Mason then said that we had to prepare for climate risks [yes, in both directions, towards cooler as well as warmer]; and that there was a “scientific consensus” [but he offered no evidence for the existence of any such consensus, still less for the notion that science is done by consensus].

The President thanked the speakers and expressed the Society’s gratitude to the Science and Public Policy Institute for sponsoring the debate. Hon. Members filed out of the Debating Chamber, built to resemble the interior of the House of Commons, and passed either side of the brass division-pole at the main door – Ayes to the right 135, Noes to the left 110. Motion carried.

How splendid in this often pessimist debate, to get the chance to present some good news!

According to the global health statistics from WHO, things are going in the right direction, in some cases remarkably well. Since 1990, infant mortality has decreased by 30 percent. Malnutrition is going down, access to drinking water has gone up, and even the spread of HIV has been halted.

It’s still a long way to go, but at least the WHO points out, in their own analysis that the most essential prerequisite for the creation of healthier societies is growth and sound politics, in other – though not directly WHO’s – words, free markets and democracy. One of the few complaints in the study, is that chronic diseases that used to be a problem for the industrialized world, now are more common in developing countries. Sad enough, but a rather natural consequence of decreased epidemics and higher life expectancy. Call it a luxury problem if you wish, but at least I – with my rather bad allergy – is happy to have been born and still be alive. About a hundred years ago, when allergies did not exist in Europe, that would have been a lot less likely. Two of the both worse and common illnesses in the developed world (The developing countries, sadly, are still fighting with Malaria, due to western stupidity some decades ago), diabetes and cancer – both chronic – are horrendous things. Scientists are working frantically to find the best cures. What is needed for this endeavour is nothing less than expensive education and research, technological development and heavy investments . Even the companies are pitching in, creating less expensive equipment not dependent on a steady access to electricity.

Another piece of news that could be either good or bad, is that Christina Figueres from Costa Rica, has been appointed new head of the UN Climate section, after Yvo de Boer. Good, if she can put some sense into the debate. Not so good if she continues the fight to dramatically reduce the possibilities for growth and prosperity that her predesesors sadly carried out.

As tragic as it is, I can’t help being hopeful about the rebuilding after the catastrophe on Haiti. Emergency aid, especially coordination, is difficult to say the least. Sometimes it seems as coordination is what is not needed, but rather individual initiatives. Naturally, people tend to get in each-others way, but a common mission can create spontaneous order. This of course does not include the looters and vultures, or subsequent lynchings. why the need for a civil society is a paramount part of the overall efforts.

Plain stupidities however, seem to have been rather scarce. One lady recently managed to publish a lengthy article claiming that missionaries were the worst problems, as Christianity would be a threat to the traditional voodoo religion. The born again christian diva Carola, twice winner of the Eurovision song contest, is walking around the ruins contemplating that this is the biblical sign of the Armageddon. And, I guess, there are some other compassionate air heads there too.

The thing is, they don’t really cause any harm. Carola even takes care of an orphan. If we closed the border to all religious zealots, we could very well be doomed.

And as for environmental preachers, I’ve still not heard anyone – apart from sloppy archive digging  journalists, claiming that natural catastrophes are increasing, for some reason (notch notch)… – link Haiti to global warming.

The only conflict that is going on is the same as always, distrust of aid organisations where money goes astray, competition among the NGO’s for attention and support, but it’s not really doing any harm. The serious organisations are doing their job, not caring about the huge salary the fundraising president gets. And for the less serious, well, any donor has a choice. Just try to imagine an international, governmental monopoly in charge. Sure, politicians are throwing out tax money as well, taking up space at the airport for photo ops, but the important work is carried out by professionals who don’t care about politics or religion. Please feel free to register to add a comment to this posting, and suggest help lines.